The Moral Case for Sanctions Against Russia

[wolfbat359]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2

excerpt:

A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.

The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.

The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.

Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

[GLOBALIST]

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

Anti Russian propaganda. Hating millions of people who are
leading very healthy and happy lives The Russians are
naturally a very religious people and the morality of
considering them our enemy is STUPID

[Lawrence Akutagawa]

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These
can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama
Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed
at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the
incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he
views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to
exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.”
Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both
stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or
frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for
this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from
indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause
even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard
times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic
resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart”
sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These
are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system
that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted
sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel
against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s
mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where
every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These
are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however,
that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of
his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by
proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are,
without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super
rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is
unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs
underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet
kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and
most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher
Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list,
while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large
holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian
state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to
change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

Anti Russian propaganda. Hating millions of people who are
leading very healthy and happy lives The Russians are
naturally a very religious people and the morality of
considering them our enemy is STUPID

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

ha ha ha ha ha !!!

And again does the Village Idiot perform his same-o same-o boring
Intellectual Coward ploy to run away from the issue, of course with his tail
well between his legs, back into that deep dark dank same-o same-o hole
under his rock!

[Lawrence Akutagawa]

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These
can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama
Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed
at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the
incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he
views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to
exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.”
Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both
stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or
frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for
this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from
indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause
even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard
times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic
resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart”
sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These
are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system
that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted
sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel
against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s
mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where
every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These
are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however,
that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of
his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by
proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are,
without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super
rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is
unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs
underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet
kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and
most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher
Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list,
while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large
holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian
state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to
change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

Anti Russian propaganda. Hating millions of people who are
leading very healthy and happy lives The Russians are
naturally a very religious people and the morality of
considering them our enemy is STUPID

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

Ha Ha Ha!!
Behold how the Village Idiot again entertain us all with his crappy crappy
English!

You, Village Idiot, are so very very *F*U*N*N*Y* with your crappy crappy
English!

Why, Village Idiot, are you with your crappy crappy English still in this
country?

wups...just look at the Village Idiot run away again from the issue of his
crappy crappy English by performing yet another Intellectual Coward ploy, of
course with his tail barely perceivable between his legs this time, back
into that deep dark diseased hole of his under his rock!

[Lawrence Akutagawa]

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These
can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama
Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed
at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the
incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he
views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to
exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.”
Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both
stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or
frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for
this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from
indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause
even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard
times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic
resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart”
sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These
are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system
that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted
sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel
against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s
mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where
every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These
are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however,
that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of
his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by
proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are,
without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super
rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is
unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs
underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet
kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and
most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher
Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list,
while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large
holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian
state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to
change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

Anti Russian propaganda. Hating millions of people who are
leading very healthy and happy lives The Russians are
naturally a very religious people and the morality of
considering them our enemy is STUPID

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

And this, of course, is not more - and most certainly no less - than typical
Village Idiot anti-"Anti Russian propaganda."

The Putin loving Village Idiot, folks, has most clearly struck yet again!

ha ha ha

And again does the Village Idiot perform his same-o same-o boring
Intellectual Coward ploy to run away from the issue, of course with his tail
well between his legs, back into that deep dark dank same-o same-o hole
under his rock!

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.

As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.

I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
spiteful and spoiled-rotten little kids would do, to me:
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Wan

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.

Sadly, there are people for whom there is never enough money to satisfy
them.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.

Sadly, there are people for whom there is never enough money to satisfy
them.

That's why we shouldn't be letting them run the country,
but unfortunately that's exactly what we're letting them do,
with eager assistance from politicians who want a little bit
of their money.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.

Sadly, there are people for whom there is never enough money to satisfy
them. http://youtu.be/bEmjiCoZ6e4

That's why we shouldn't be letting them run the country,
but unfortunately that's exactly what we're letting them do,
with eager assistance from politicians who want a little bit
of their money.

Do

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,

the

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.

Sadly, there are people for whom there is never enough money to satisfy
them. http://youtu.be/bEmjiCoZ6e4

That's why we shouldn't be letting them run the country,
but unfortunately that's exactly what we're letting them do,
with eager assistance from politicians who want a little bit
of their money.

Do you think it is better or worse in Russia?

In the minds of most people, including myself, the USA
is the best (perhaps) and greatest (surely) nation of this
age. That doesn't at all mean that it's pure as the driven
snow, any more than Britain was when it was capturing
slaves from Africa and selling them, murdering anybody
who stood in the way, and subjugating the people of the
nations it took over.

Another failed attempt with smelly roseate Norwegian
fish. Those fish are what get us into a lot of trouble,
because some people buy them eagerly, from Washington
and from all the mainstream news outlets, all without
realizing they're being led down the primrose path, if I
may be permitted to mix metaphors.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,

the

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.

Sadly, there are people for whom there is never enough money to satisfy
them. http://youtu.be/bEmjiCoZ6e4

That's why we shouldn't be letting them run the country,
but unfortunately that's exactly what we're letting them do,
with eager assistance from politicians who want a little bit
of their money.

Do you think it is better or worse in Russia?

In the minds of most people, including myself, the USA
is the best (perhaps) and greatest (surely) nation of this
age. That doesn't at all mean that it's pure as the driven
snow, any more than Britain was when it was capturing
slaves from Africa and selling them, murdering anybody
who stood in the way, and subjugating the people of the
nations it took over.
Another failed attempt with smelly roseate Norwegian
fish. Those fish are what get us into a lot of trouble,
because some people buy them eagerly, from Washington
and from all the mainstream news outlets, all without
realizing they're being led down the primrose path, if I
may be permitted to mix metaphors.

I doubt that there is any country that is free of the influence of money
on politics, so we can and should aspire to be better. Personally, I
think that we have taken a big step backward in this respect in the
Trump administration. Instead of being immune from bribery because he
is already rich, he seems to have raised it to a whole

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,

the

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.

Sadly, there are people for whom there is never enough money to satisfy
them. http://youtu.be/bEmjiCoZ6e4

That's why we shouldn't be letting them run the country,
but unfortunately that's exactly what we're letting them do,
with eager assistance from politicians who want a little bit
of their money.

Do you think it is better or worse in Russia?

In the minds of most people, including myself, the USA
is the best (perhaps) and greatest (surely) nation of this
age. That doesn't at all mean that it's pure as the driven
snow, any more than Britain was when it was capturing
slaves from Africa and selling them, murdering anybody
who stood in the way, and subjugating the people of the
nations it took over.
Another failed attempt with smelly roseate Norwegian
fish. Those fish are what get us into a lot of trouble,
because some people buy them eagerly, from Washington
and from all the mainstream news outlets, all without
realizing they're being led down the primrose path, if I
may be permitted to mix metaphors.

I doubt that there is any country that is free of the influence of money
on politics, so we can and should aspire to be better. Personally, I
think that we have taken a big step backward in this respect in the
Trump administration. Instead of being immune from bribery because he
is already rich, he seems to have raised it to a whole new and shocking
level.

Yep, you can't believe anybody no mo'. It's been that
way for a long time. I remember a time when I didn't
feel that way, but that was during the McCarthy error,
so I was wrong. I always, at least by the time I started
High School, refused to say the words "Under God" in
the Pledge of Allegiance. Those two words were inserted
in 1954. I also very early stood up for Charles Darwin
in opposition to Christian fatuousness, and I opposed
racism but there was one conspicuous exception.
Before high school, there was one black girl in my
class, named Julia, and one of the other kids, Jimmy
Lynch, who's probably a ferocious right-wing racist now,
laughed about people getting "Julia's germs" if they sat
down somewhere she'd been sitting. That was before
high school. Julia was a nice girl, but obviously very
crushed by the way she was ostracized by the other
kids. I talked with her, nicely, a couple of times, but
for the most part I was too intimidated myself to
diverge too obviously from the other kids. I don't
know what the general opinion of Jimmy Lynch was,
but I never saw anybody challenge him. Julia was
only in that school one year. I hope her parents
realized what she was going through, and pulled her
out to go somewhere else to school, though since the
town was mostly lily-white, there weren't many other
options. Maybe the whole family moved out, I
wouldn't blame them. I regret, every time I think
about it, that I didn't have the guts to stand up to
Jimmy Lynch and racism at that age. I was 12 or
less at the time.

Once we got to high school, I never saw Jimmy
Lynch again, nor a surprising number of the kids
I went to grade school with, even though most
everybody went to the same High School, the only
one in town.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
I doubt that there is any country that is free of the influence of money
on politics, so we can and should aspire to be better. Personally, I
think that we have taken a big step backward in this respect in the
Trump administration. Instead of being immune from bribery because he
is already rich, he seems to have raised it to a whole new and shocking
level.

Yep, you can't believe anybody no mo'. It's been that
way for a long time. I remember a time when I didn't
feel that way, but that was during the McCarthy error,
so I was wrong. I always, at least by the time I started
High School, refused to say the words "Under God" in
the Pledge of Allegiance. Those two words were inserted
in 1954. I also very early stood up for Charles Darwin
in opposition to Christian fatuousness, and I opposed
racism but there was one conspicuous exception.
Before high school, there was one black girl in my
class, named Julia, and one of the other kids, Jimmy
Lynch, who's probably a ferocious right-wing racist now,
laughed about people getting "Julia's germs" if they sat
down somewhere she'd been sitting. That was before
high school. Julia was a nice girl, but obviously very
crushed by the way she was ostracized by the other
kids. I talked with her, nicely, a couple of times, but
for the most part I was too intimidated myself to
diverge too obviously from the other kids. I don't
know what the general opinion of Jimmy Lynch was,
but I never saw anybody challenge him. Julia was
only in that school one year. I hope her parents
realized what she was going through, and pulled her
out to go somewhere else to school, though since the
town was mostly lily-white, there weren't many other
options. Maybe the whole family moved out, I
wouldn't blame them. I regret, every time I think
about it, that I didn't have the guts to stand up to
Jimmy Lynch and racism at that age. I was 12 or
less at the time.
Once we got to high school, I never saw Jimmy
Lynch again, nor a surprising number of the kids
I went to grade school with, even though most
everybody went to the same High School, the only
one in town.

I always said "Under God" with the Pledge of Allegiance. I wasn't sure there was a God or not but I didn't want to throw anything in someone else's face. If they got satisfaction from their religion, I didn't want to challenge that. In community college, I studied music and met a very intelligent girl who got strait A's but she wasn't extremely attractive, so I went chasing other girls who were more attractive but ended up being 'air heads'. It was a big mistake. Wish I knew her now.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
I doubt that there is any country that is free of the influence of money
on politics, so we can and should aspire to be better. Personally, I
think that we have taken a big step backward in this respect in the
Trump administration. Instead of being immune from bribery because he
is already rich, he seems to have raised it to a whole new and shocking
level.

Yep, you can't believe anybody no mo'. It's been that
way for a long time. I remember a time when I didn't
feel that way, but that was during the McCarthy error,
so I was wrong. I always, at least by the time I started
High School, refused to say the words "Under God" in
the Pledge of Allegiance. Those two words were inserted
in 1954. I also very early stood up for Charles Darwin
in opposition to Christian fatuousness, and I opposed
racism but there was one conspicuous exception.
Before high school, there was one black girl in my
class, named Julia, and one of the other kids, Jimmy
Lynch, who's probably a ferocious right-wing racist now,
laughed about people getting "Julia's germs" if they sat
down somewhere she'd been sitting. That was before
high school. Julia was a nice girl, but obviously very
crushed by the way she was ostracized by the other
kids. I talked with her, nicely, a couple of times, but
for the most part I was too intimidated myself to
diverge too obviously from the other kids. I don't
know what the general opinion of Jimmy Lynch was,
but I never saw anybody challenge him. Julia was
only in that school one year. I hope her parents
realized what she was going through, and pulled her
out to go somewhere else to school, though since the
town was mostly lily-white, there weren't many other
options. Maybe the whole family moved out, I
wouldn't blame them. I regret, every time I think
about it, that I didn't have the guts to stand up to
Jimmy Lynch and racism at that age. I was 12 or
less at the time.
Once we got to high school, I never saw Jimmy
Lynch again, nor a surprising number of the kids
I went to grade school with, even though most
everybody went to the same High School, the only
one in town.

I always said "Under God" with the Pledge of Allegiance. I wasn't sure there was a God or not but I didn't want to throw anything in someone else's face. If they got satisfaction from their religion, I didn't want to challenge that. In community college, I studied music and met a very intelligent girl who got strait A's but she wasn't extremely attractive, so I went chasing other girls who were more attractive but ended up being 'air heads'. It was a big mistake. Wish I knew her now.

I'm gay, so religion very definitely harmed me,
permanently, when I was growing up and trying to
figure things out. Religion is IMO evil, evil, evil,
and it makes the people who believe it evil, evil,
evil, even if they didn't start out that way (though
many of them probably did).

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
I doubt that there is any country that is free of the influence of money
on politics, so we can and should aspire to be better. Personally, I
think that we have taken a big step backward in this respect in the
Trump administration. Instead of being immune from bribery because he
is already rich, he seems to have raised it to a whole new and shocking
level.

Yep, you can't believe anybody no mo'. It's been that
way for a long time. I remember a time when I didn't
feel that way, but that was during the McCarthy error,
so I was wrong. I always, at least by the time I started
High School, refused to say the words "Under God" in
the Pledge of Allegiance. Those two words were inserted
in 1954. I also very early stood up for Charles Darwin
in opposition to Christian fatuousness, and I opposed
racism but there was one conspicuous exception.
Before high school, there was one black girl in my
class, named Julia, and one of the other kids, Jimmy
Lynch, who's probably a ferocious right-wing racist now,
laughed about people getting "Julia's germs" if they sat
down somewhere she'd been sitting. That was before
high school. Julia was a nice girl, but obviously very
crushed by the way she was ostracized by the other
kids. I talked with her, nicely, a couple of times, but
for the most part I was too intimidated myself to
diverge too obviously from the other kids. I don't
know what the general opinion of Jimmy Lynch was,
but I never saw anybody challenge him. Julia was
only in that school one year. I hope her parents
realized what she was going through, and pulled her
out to go somewhere else to school, though since the
town was mostly lily-white, there weren't many other
options. Maybe the whole family moved out, I
wouldn't blame them. I regret, every time I think
about it, that I didn't have the guts to stand up to
Jimmy Lynch and racism at that age. I was 12 or
less at the time.
Once we got to high school, I never saw Jimmy
Lynch again, nor a surprising number of the kids
I went to grade school with, even though most
everybody went to the same High School, the only
one in town.

I always said "Under God" with the Pledge of Allegiance. I wasn't sure there was a God or not but I didn't want to throw anything in someone else's face. If they got satisfaction from their religion, I didn't want to challenge that. In community college, I studied music and met a very intelligent girl who got strait A's but she wasn't extremely attractive, so I went chasing other girls who were more attractive but ended up being 'air heads'. It was a big mistake. Wish I knew her now.

I'm gay, so religion very definitely harmed me,
permanently, when I was growing up and trying to
figure things out. Religion is IMO evil, evil, evil,
and it makes the people who believe it evil, evil,
evil, even if they didn't start out that way (though
many of them probably did).

When I was growing up in the Episcopal church there was never any mention of gay people. It's unfortunate gay behavior was condemned in the old testament but I never heard about it until I started reading stuff on this newsgroup.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
I doubt that there is any country that is free of the influence of money
on politics, so we can and should aspire to be better. Personally, I
think that we have taken a big step backward in this respect in the
Trump administration. Instead of being immune from bribery because he
is already rich, he seems to have raised it to a whole new and shocking
level.

Yep, you can't believe anybody no mo'. It's been that
way for a long time. I remember a time when I didn't
feel that way, but that was during the McCarthy error,
so I was wrong. I always, at least by the time I started
High School, refused to say the words "Under God" in
the Pledge of Allegiance. Those two words were inserted
in 1954. I also very early stood up for Charles Darwin
in opposition to Christian fatuousness, and I opposed
racism but there was one conspicuous exception.
Before high school, there was one black girl in my
class, named Julia, and one of the other kids, Jimmy
Lynch, who's probably a ferocious right-wing racist now,
laughed about people getting "Julia's germs" if they sat
down somewhere she'd been sitting. That was before
high school. Julia was a nice girl, but obviously very
crushed by the way she was ostracized by the other
kids. I talked with her, nicely, a couple of times, but
for the most part I was too intimidated myself to
diverge too obviously from the other kids. I don't
know what the general opinion of Jimmy Lynch was,
but I never saw anybody challenge him. Julia was
only in that school one year. I hope her parents
realized what she was going through, and pulled her
out to go somewhere else to school, though since the
town was mostly lily-white, there weren't many other
options. Maybe the whole family moved out, I
wouldn't blame them. I regret, every time I think
about it, that I didn't have the guts to stand up to
Jimmy Lynch and racism at that age. I was 12 or
less at the time.
Once we got to high school, I never saw Jimmy
Lynch again, nor a surprising number of the kids
I went to grade school with, even though most
everybody went to the same High School, the only
one in town.

I always said "Under God" with the Pledge of Allegiance. I wasn't sure there was a God or not but I didn't want to throw anything in someone else's face. If they got satisfaction from their religion, I didn't want to challenge that. In community college, I studied music and met a very intelligent girl who got strait A's but she wasn't extremely attractive, so I went chasing other girls who were more attractive but ended up being 'air heads'. It was a big mistake. Wish I knew her now.

I'm gay, so religion very definitely harmed me,
permanently, when I was growing up and trying to
figure things out. Religion is IMO evil, evil, evil,
and it makes the people who believe it evil, evil,
evil, even if they didn't start out that way (though
many of them probably did).

When I was growing up in the Episcopal church there was never any mention of gay people. It's unfortunate gay behavior was condemned in the old testament but I never heard about it until I started reading stuff on this newsgroup.

That's because they were too terrorized to speak out
or become full human beings, same as happened to me.
They were terrorized by the religion and by the people
who accede to the religion. Religion is evil, evil, evil.
The only good thing about it is that it's dying. As Dylan
sang in "Masters of War", not about religion but the
words fit equally well:

And I hope that you die,
And your death will come soon.
I'll follow your casket
In the pale afternoon.
And I'll watch as you're lowered
Into your death-bed,
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com
When I was growing up in the Episcopal church there was never any mention of gay people. It's unfortunate gay behavior was condemned in the old testament but I never heard about it until I started reading stuff on this newsgroup.

That's because they were too terrorized to speak out
or become full human beings, same as happened to me.
They were terrorized by the religion and by the people
who accede to the religion. Religion is evil, evil, evil.
The only good thing about it is that it's dying. As Dylan
sang in "Masters of War", not about religion but the
And I hope that you die,
And your death will come soon.
I'll follow your casket
In the pale afternoon.
And I'll watch as you're lowered
Into your death-bed,
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

You seem very well read. The last book I read was "Reminiscences of a Stock Operator" which was a book about Jesse Livermore who started studying the market when he was 14. He got to know it so well he was banned from trading at the local bucket shops. He made a multi-million fortune and lost it all and blew his brains out in the end when he was broke. He's my kind of guy.

"Jesse Lauriston Livermore. Jesse Lauriston Livermore (July 26, 1877 – November 28, 1940) was an American investor and security analyst. Livermore was famed for making and losing several multimillion-dollar fortunes and short selling during the stock market crashes in 1907 and 1929."

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com
When I was growing up in the Episcopal church there was never any mention of gay people. It's unfortunate gay behavior was condemned in the old testament but I never heard about it until I started reading stuff on this newsgroup.

That's because they were too terrorized to speak out
or become full human beings, same as happened to me.
They were terrorized by the religion and by the people
who accede to the religion. Religion is evil, evil, evil.
The only good thing about it is that it's dying. As Dylan
sang in "Masters of War", not about religion but the
And I hope that you die,
And your death will come soon.
I'll follow your casket
In the pale afternoon.
And I'll watch as you're lowered
Into your death-bed,
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

You seem very well read. The last book I read was "Reminiscences of a Stock Operator" which was a book about Jesse Livermore who started studying the market when he was 14. He got to know it so well he was banned from trading at the local bucket shops. He made a multi-million fortune and lost it all and blew his brains out in the end when he was broke. He's my kind of guy.

That was in the past. I've read very little since September when
I suddenly transitioned from great to not-so-great health. I have
Pinker's newest book on the way from Amazon, and a couple of
books that I've half-finished but scarcely looked at since my fall
from perfect health.

Post by b***@gmail.com
"Jesse Lauriston Livermore. Jesse Lauriston Livermore (July 26, 1877 – November 28, 1940) was an American investor and security analyst. Livermore was famed for making and losing several multimillion-dollar fortunes and short selling during the stock market crashes in 1907 and 1929."

Sounds like he had his ducks in a row, and had guts too,
which almost rhymes.

Short-selling is too rich for my blood, but I was hoping
to get into the S&P if it fell far enough, but it looks now
that it's not going to fall far enough to suit me. We'll see.
Despite not having worked since about age 50, I seem to
be at the bottom of the richest quintile in the USA. I don't
know how that happened, because I'm a doofus about
money, and certainly one of the laziest people around.

I've just spent an hour or more playing a computer
"spades" game. It's different from the spades I used to
play in college, in that you're penalized with one "bag" for
every trick your partnership makes above what the total
of what your partnership had bid. Total-partnership
overtricks are counted as one "bag" each. If your
accumulate ten "bags" in any hand, you lose a hundred
points before the rest of your joint score is tallied, and
the number of "bags" you had accumulated is reduced
by 10.

Your partnership also get a hundred points if either
you or your partner bids and makes "null", although
the partnership loses a hundred points if the null fails.
If one of your partnership bids null, his partner can bid
what he wants, and the partner who bids and makes
null gets the partnership a hundred points in addition to
the points made (or lost) by the other partner. That's
the only time an individual player's bid counts, rather
than the partnership total. Otherwise, if you bid two
and only make one but your partner bids two and
makes three, your partnership gets credited with the
composite score. If nobody bids null, the partnership
total is reduced by the total partnership bid is not
made. I must admit that this version of "Spades" is
more interesting. It's called "24.7 Spades". I hadn't
played Spades on the computer before this, because
I'd have had to pick a smelly human from the internet
to partner with, rather than a nice clean robot.
http://www.247games.org/spades/

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,

the

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.

Sadly, there are people for whom there is never enough money to satisfy
them. http://youtu.be/bEmjiCoZ6e4

That's why we shouldn't be letting them run the country,
but unfortunately that's exactly what we're letting them do,
with eager assistance from politicians who want a little bit
of their money.

Do you think it is better or worse in Russia?

In the minds of most people, including myself, the USA
is the best (perhaps) and greatest (surely) nation of this
age. That doesn't at all mean that it's pure as the driven
snow, any more than Britain was when it was capturing
slaves from Africa and selling them, murdering anybody
who stood in the way, and subjugating the people of the
nations it took over.
Another failed attempt with smelly roseate Norwegian
fish. Those fish are what get us into a lot of trouble,
because some people buy them eagerly, from Washington
and from all the mainstream news outlets, all without
realizing they're being led down the primrose path, if I
may be permitted to mix metaphors.

I doubt that there is any country that is free of the influence of money
on politics, so we can and should aspire to be better. Personally, I
think that we have taken a big step backward in this respect in the
Trump administration. Instead of being immune from bribery because he
is already rich, he seems to have raised it to a whole new and shocking
level.

Yep, you can't believe anybody no mo'. It's been that
way for a long time. I remember a time when I didn't
feel that way, but that was during the McCarthy error,
so I was wrong. I always, at least by the time I started
High School, refused to say the words "Under God" in
the Pledge of Allegiance. Those two words were inserted
in 1954. I also very early stood up for Charles Darwin
in opposition to Christian fatuousness, and I opposed
racism but there was one conspicuous exception.
Before high school, there was one black girl in my
class, named Julia, and one of the other kids, Jimmy
Lynch, who's probably a ferocious right-wing racist now,
laughed about people getting "Julia's germs" if they sat
down somewhere she'd been sitting. That was before
high school. Julia was a nice girl, but obviously very
crushed by the way she was ostracized by the other
kids. I talked with her, nicely, a couple of times, but
for the most part I was too intimidated myself to
diverge too obviously from the other kids. I don't
know what the general opinion of Jimmy Lynch was,
but I never saw anybody challenge him. Julia was
only in that school one year. I hope her parents
realized what she was going through, and pulled her
out to go somewhere else to school, though since the
town was mostly lily-white, there weren't many other
options. Maybe the whole family moved out, I
wouldn't blame them. I regret, every time I think
about it, that I didn't have the guts to stand up to
Jimmy Lynch and racism at that age. I was 12 or
less at the time.
Once we got to high school, I never saw Jimmy
Lynch again, nor a surprising number of the kids
I went to grade school with, even though most
everybody went to the same High School, the only
one in town.

Kids can be cruel. I recall a similar incident at about the same age.
This girl was Puerto Rican and I was pretty well teased by the other
kids about having a crush on her. I guess we were both the butt of
their joke. I didn't stand up for her in fear of making my share even
worse. Not my best hour!

People are expected to grow up and get past all that, but some don't
seem to mature at all. Trump with all his flaws seems to me to be the
poster child of someone who didn't grow out of hi

[El Castor]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??

Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c

Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654

BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.

Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia

Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!

Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproduct

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia

Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!

Have you checked with Theresa May about that? She might be
able to direct you to some British, or even American, secretive
agencies that might have something to do with it, as likely or
MORE likely than Russia.

The philosophy of secretive agencies seems to be that if you
don't have the people on your side, you haven't been working
at it hard enough. They have their own "goals" which don't
coincide with mine. Need I mention Vietnam, Cuba,
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba,
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, for example?

Post by islander
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia

Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!

Have you checked with Theresa May about that? She might be
able to direct you to some British, or even American, secretive
agencies that might have something to do with it, as likely or
MORE likely than Russia.
The philosophy of secretive agencies seems to be that if you
don't have the people on your side, you haven't been working
at it hard enough. They have their own "goals" which don't
coincide with mine. Need I mention Vietnam, Cuba,
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba,
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, for example?

That reduces us to arguing about who is worse. Not to defend US
interference in other country's business, but have you ever heard about
the US poisoning spies? I haven't.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterprod

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,

the

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia

Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!

Have you checked with Theresa May about that? She might be
able to direct you to some British, or even American, secretive
agencies that might have something to do with it, as likely or
MORE likely than Russia.
The philosophy of secretive agencies seems to be that if you
don't have the people on your side, you haven't been working
at it hard enough. They have their own "goals" which don't
coincide with mine. Need I mention Vietnam, Cuba,
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba,
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, for example?

That reduces us to arguing about who is worse. Not to defend US
interference in other country's business, but have you ever heard about
the US poisoning spies? I haven't.

Do you doubt that US secret agencies have murdered
people, a lot of people? I don't doubt it.

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,

the

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia

Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!

Have you checked with Theresa May about that? She might be
able to direct you to some British, or even American, secretive
agencies that might have something to do with it, as likely or
MORE likely than Russia.
The philosophy of secretive agencies seems to be that if you
don't have the people on your side, you haven't been working
at it hard enough. They have their own "goals" which don't
coincide with mine. Need I mention Vietnam, Cuba,
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba,
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, for example?

That reduces us to arguing about who is worse. Not to defend US
interference in other country's business, but have you ever heard about
the US poisoning spies? I haven't.

Do you doubt that US secret agencies have murdered
people, a lot of people? I don't doubt it.

I seriously doubt that it could be kept secret if they did.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.

[rumpelstiltskin]

<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Do you doubt that US secret agencies have murdered
people, a lot of people? I don't doubt it.

I seriously doubt that it could be kept secret if they did.

I think that if you ask people if the US secret government
ever murders people, such as those suspected of colluding
with Moscow secretly, most people, after thinking about it a
couple of seconds, would say "I suppose so".

If people are prominent in the public eye, that may
provide some protection because their sudden disappearance,
in combination with the knowledge why the US opposes them,
might draw some attention.

[islander]

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Do you doubt that US secret agencies have murdered
people, a lot of people? I don't doubt it.

I seriously doubt that it could be kept secret if they did.

I think that if you ask people if the US secret government
ever murders people, such as those suspected of colluding
with Moscow secretly, most people, after thinking about it a
couple of seconds, would say "I suppose so".
If people are prominent in the public eye, that may
provide some protection because their sudden disappearance,
in combination with the knowledge why the US opposes them,
might draw some attention.

Assassinations are prohibited by law in the US and have been under
several administrations. To violate that law would have serious
consequences. I realize that you don't trust our government and
especially don't trust secrecy, but I worked in an ultra secret agency
for 20 years and don't see how it could happen. We used to joke that it
was all cloak and no dagger.

One of the most famous assassinations was the Bulgarian Umbrella, named
after the killing of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov in 1978 in
London. It took a great deal of detective work to figure this out, but
they finally discovered a tiny watch bearing that had been drilled with
two tiny holes, each .34 mm in diameter. The holes were filled with
ricin, and coated with wax. The tiny pellet was loaded into the tip of
an umbrella where it was shot out with sufficient force to break the
skin. Markov complained of being stung. But, it was much more severe
than than that. He became ill and ultimately died. After the fall of
the Soviet Union, we learned from former KGB agents that the weapon had
been developed by them and provided to the Bulgarian Secret Service and
was used by them to kill him.

If you like reading about James Bond spy gadgets, it doesn't get any
better than this. The case was not finally solved beyond any doubt when
officers from Scotland Yard traveled to Bulgaria to retrieve archived
documents - 20 years after the event.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Do you doubt that US secret agencies have murdered
people, a lot of people? I don't doubt it.

I seriously doubt that it could be kept secret if they did.

I think that if you ask people if the US secret government
ever murders people, such as those suspected of colluding
with Moscow secretly, most people, after thinking about it a
couple of seconds, would say "I suppose so".
If people are prominent in the public eye, that may
provide some protection because their sudden disappearance,
in combination with the knowledge why the US opposes them,
might draw some attention.

Assassinations are prohibited by law in the US and have been under
several administrations. To violate that law would have serious
consequences. I realize that you don't trust our government and
especially don't trust secrecy, but I worked in an ultra secret agency
for 20 years and don't see how it could happen. We used to joke that it
was all cloak and no dagger.

You're right that I don't trust government. Do you blame me?

Post by islander
One of the most famous assassinations was the Bulgarian Umbrella, named
after the killing of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov in 1978 in
London. It took a great deal of detective work to figure this out, but
they finally discovered a tiny watch bearing that had been drilled with
two tiny holes, each .34 mm in diameter. The holes were filled with
ricin, and coated with wax. The tiny pellet was loaded into the tip of
an umbrella where it was shot out with sufficient force to break the
skin. Markov complained of being stung. But, it was much more severe
than than that. He became ill and ultimately died. After the fall of
the Soviet Union, we learned from former KGB agents that the weapon had
been developed by them and provided to the Bulgarian Secret Service and
was used by them to kill him.

That sounds like evidence, unless it's "manufactured "
evidence. I wasn't a party to the investigation myself,
and I have no reason to believe those that are. Maybe
the Russians did that one. I'll provisionally give the
British government the benefit of any doubt, but that's
only "provisionally". I've been lied to too often, by the
American government, but if I'd been living in Britain
it might have been by the British government.
Governments generally prefer lying that might work and
that keeps them out of hot water, over truthfulness.
Most of the time, I'm sure, they never get found out,
largely because so much gets "classified" so easily.

Post by islander
If you like reading about James Bond spy gadgets, it doesn't get any
better than this. The case was not finally solved beyond any doubt when
officers from Scotland Yard traveled to Bulgaria to retrieve archived
documents - 20 years after the event.

I saw "Goldfinger" with three teenaged friends.
The other three were more "normal" than myself, but
none of us were impressed by anything except the
name of the heroine, "Pussy Galore". I've never had
the slightest temptation to watch anything else like
that.

I only saw the first "Star Wars" movie too. The
original and followups seem a be a cult thing that's
lasted a very long time, but I was never tempted to
watch another "Star Wars" movie. I did like the
original "Star Trek" with William Shatner, and I may
have watched most of the episodes, but the followup
series, without Shatner and co., never caught my
enthusiasm. Before Star Trek, I liked "Twilight
Zone", though it took me a minute to remember the
name of it just now.

It might not be true that I only saw the first Star
Wars movie. I have a vague recollection of going to
the next one, which I think was called "Return of the
Jedi", but if so I don't remember a thing about it.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Do you doubt that US secret agencies have murdered
people, a lot of people? I don't doubt it.

I seriously doubt that it could be kept secret if they did.

I think that if you ask people if the US secret government
ever murders people, such as those suspected of colluding
with Moscow secretly, most people, after thinking about it a
couple of seconds, would say "I suppose so".
If people are prominent in the public eye, that may
provide some protection because their sudden disappearance,
in combination with the knowledge why the US opposes them,
might draw some attention.

Assassinations are prohibited by law in the US and have been under
several administrations. To violate that law would have serious
consequences. I realize that you don't trust our government and
especially don't trust secrecy, but I worked in an ultra secret agency
for 20 years and don't see how it could happen. We used to joke that it
was all cloak and no dagger.

You're right that I don't trust government. Do you blame me?

Post by islander
One of the most famous assassinations was the Bulgarian Umbrella, named
after the killing of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov in 1978 in
London. It took a great deal of detective work to figure this out, but
they finally discovered a tiny watch bearing that had been drilled with
two tiny holes, each .34 mm in diameter. The holes were filled with
ricin, and coated with wax. The tiny pellet was loaded into the tip of
an umbrella where it was shot out with sufficient force to break the
skin. Markov complained of being stung. But, it was much more severe
than than that. He became ill and ultimately died. After the fall of
the Soviet Union, we learned from former KGB agents that the weapon had
been developed by them and provided to the Bulgarian Secret Service and
was used by them to kill him.

That sounds like evidence, unless it's "manufactured "
evidence. I wasn't a party to the investigation myself,
and I have no reason to believe those that are. Maybe
the Russians did that one. I'll provisionally give the
British government the benefit of any doubt, but that's
only "provisionally". I've been lied to too often, by the
American government, but if I'd been living in Britain
it might have been by the British government.
Governments generally prefer lying that might work and
that keeps them out of hot water, over truthfulness.
Most of the time, I'm sure, they never get found out,
largely because so much gets "classified" so easily.

The truth almost always comes out. It took 50 years before the ULTRA
secret was revealed, the biggest and most carefully kept secret of WWII.
Why was it kept so long? Nations were still using cryptography
machines based on wired rotors for that long. Now, there are pictures
of the Enigma machine on the Internet along with descriptions of how it
works. There is even an NSA museum where you can see one.

But, I don't think that these are the kind of secrets that you are
concerned about. Generally, it is not an easy thing to classify
material in the intelligence agencies. It is a complicated process that
gets even more complicated as the level of classification goes up. They
take classification very seriously. When there are abuses, and there
are abuses, it has to be a conspiracy involving more than one person and
when there is more than one person involved the chances of it leaking
out increase with the number of people involved, even considering the
penalties for leaking.

But, the truth almost always comes out. I say "almost" because there is
one case that I know of which is quite old for which someone went to a
great deal of trouble to keep it secret. That is the secret of Oak
Island. Something was buried quite deep with a number of hazards
inserted to prevent anyone recovering it - ever! The secret has
survived for hundreds of years despite all manner of treasure hunters
attempting to find the answer, be it treasure or deep dark secret. The
latest attempt was done in conjunction with a TV series about the secret
including dramatic music and found clues adding to the suspense. I was
interested in this well before it became fodder for entertainment. An
amazing and puzzling story!

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Do you doubt that US secret agencies have murdered
people, a lot of people? I don't doubt it.

I seriously doubt that it could be kept secret if they did.

I think that if you ask people if the US secret government
ever murders people, such as those suspected of colluding
with Moscow secretly, most people, after thinking about it a
couple of seconds, would say "I suppose so".
If people are prominent in the public eye, that may
provide some protection because their sudden disappearance,
in combination with the knowledge why the US opposes them,
might draw some attention.

Assassinations are prohibited by law in the US and have been under
several administrations. To violate that law would have serious
consequences. I realize that you don't trust our government and
especially don't trust secrecy, but I worked in an ultra secret agency
for 20 years and don't see how it could happen. We used to joke that it
was all cloak and no dagger.

You're right that I don't trust government. Do you blame me?

Post by islander
One of the most famous assassinations was the Bulgarian Umbrella, named
after the killing of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov in 1978 in
London. It took a great deal of detective work to figure this out, but
they finally discovered a tiny watch bearing that had been drilled with
two tiny holes, each .34 mm in diameter. The holes were filled with
ricin, and coated with wax. The tiny pellet was loaded into the tip of
an umbrella where it was shot out with sufficient force to break the
skin. Markov complained of being stung. But, it was much more severe
than than that. He became ill and ultimately died. After the fall of
the Soviet Union, we learned from former KGB agents that the weapon had
been developed by them and provided to the Bulgarian Secret Service and
was used by them to kill him.

That sounds like evidence, unless it's "manufactured "
evidence. I wasn't a party to the investigation myself,
and I have no reason to believe those that are. Maybe
the Russians did that one. I'll provisionally give the
British government the benefit of any doubt, but that's
only "provisionally". I've been lied to too often, by the
American government, but if I'd been living in Britain
it might have been by the British government.
Governments generally prefer lying that might work and
that keeps them out of hot water, over truthfulness.
Most of the time, I'm sure, they never get found out,
largely because so much gets "classified" so easily.

The truth almost always comes out. It took 50 years before the ULTRA
secret was revealed, the biggest and most carefully kept secret of WWII.

I'll be long dead in 50 years. Alan Turing was driven to suicide
for being homosexual, receiving mandatory chemical "treatment"
that among other things made him start to grow breasts, and it
wasn't until years later that it was "declassified" that without
him WWII might have been lost, by a nation that didn't deserve
him. He committed suicide by injecting an apple with poison
and biting a piece out of it.

Recently, an Apple exec was asked if that was the reason that
Apple's symbol was an apple with a bite out of it. The Apple
exec said no, they didn't know that story when they designed the
logo, but he really wished they had known it and that was the
reason they adopted it.

Post by islander
Why was it kept so long? Nations were still using cryptography
machines based on wired rotors for that long. Now, there are pictures
of the Enigma machine on the Internet along with descriptions of how it
works. There is even an NSA museum where you can see one.
But, I don't think that these are the kind of secrets that you are
concerned about. Generally, it is not an easy thing to classify
material in the intelligence agencies.

Then how come we don't know anything about the supposed
"evidence" that Russia poisoned the ex-spy with a poison that
it says it destroyed all its stocks of long ago. I know the reason,
I'm pretty sure - there IS no such evidence. It's just the Cold
War starting up again.

Post by islander
It is a complicated process that
gets even more complicated as the level of classification goes up. They
take classification very seriously. When there are abuses, and there
are abuses, it has to be a conspiracy involving more than one person and
when there is more than one person involved the chances of it leaking
out increase with the number of people involved, even considering the
penalties for leaking.

We had "classified" information that Iraq had "WMD"s, didn't
we? Is there any difference between "classified" and baloney?
There doesn't seem to be.

Too bad about the Iraq war happening in between. Trillions
of dollars and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people.
Just one of those things, I guess. No worries though, some of
the truth has now come out, years later. You can always trust
the "intelligence" agencies.

Post by islander
But, the truth almost always comes out. I say "almost" because there is
one case that I know of which is quite old for which someone went to a
great deal of trouble to keep it secret. That is the secret of Oak
Island. Something was buried quite deep with a number of hazards
inserted to prevent anyone recovering it - ever! The secret has
survived for hundreds of years despite all manner of treasure hunters
attempting to find the answer, be it treasure or deep dark secret. The
latest attempt was done in conjunction with a TV series about the secret
including dramatic music and found clues adding to the suspense. I was
interested in this well before it became fodder for entertainment. An
amazing and puzzling story!

"Oak Island" must be something that was talked about elsewhere.
I've never heard of it, and haven't read it here. There's an article
about "The Oak Island mystery" on Wikipedia, but it's not informative.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Do you doubt that US secret agencies have murdered
people, a lot of people? I don't doubt it.

I seriously doubt that it could be kept secret if they did.

I think that if you ask people if the US secret government
ever murders people, such as those suspected of colluding
with Moscow secretly, most people, after thinking about it a
couple of seconds, would say "I suppose so".
If people are prominent in the public eye, that may
provide some protection because their sudden disappearance,
in combination with the knowledge why the US opposes them,
might draw some attention.

Assassinations are prohibited by law in the US and have been under
several administrations. To violate that law would have serious
consequences. I realize that you don't trust our government and
especially don't trust secrecy, but I worked in an ultra secret agency
for 20 years and don't see how it could happen. We used to joke that it
was all cloak and no dagger.

You're right that I don't trust government. Do you blame me?

Post by islander
One of the most famous assassinations was the Bulgarian Umbrella, named
after the killing of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov in 1978 in
London. It took a great deal of detective work to figure this out, but
they finally discovered a tiny watch bearing that had been drilled with
two tiny holes, each .34 mm in diameter. The holes were filled with
ricin, and coated with wax. The tiny pellet was loaded into the tip of
an umbrella where it was shot out with sufficient force to break the
skin. Markov complained of being stung. But, it was much more severe
than than that. He became ill and ultimately died. After the fall of
the Soviet Union, we learned from former KGB agents that the weapon had
been developed by them and provided to the Bulgarian Secret Service and
was used by them to kill him.

That sounds like evidence, unless it's "manufactured "
evidence. I wasn't a party to the investigation myself,
and I have no reason to believe those that are. Maybe
the Russians did that one. I'll provisionally give the
British government the benefit of any doubt, but that's
only "provisionally". I've been lied to too often, by the
American government, but if I'd been living in Britain
it might have been by the British government.
Governments generally prefer lying that might work and
that keeps them out of hot water, over truthfulness.
Most of the time, I'm sure, they never get found out,
largely because so much gets "classified" so easily.

The truth almost always comes out. It took 50 years before the ULTRA
secret was revealed, the biggest and most carefully kept secret of WWII.

I'll be long dead in 50 years. Alan Turing was driven to suicide
for being homosexual, receiving mandatory chemical "treatment"
that among other things made him start to grow breasts, and it
wasn't until years later that it was "declassified" that without
him WWII might have been lost, by a nation that didn't deserve
him. He committed suicide by injecting an apple with poison
and biting a piece out of it.
Recently, an Apple exec was asked if that was the reason that
Apple's symbol was an apple with a bite out of it. The Apple
exec said no, they didn't know that story when they designed the
logo, but he really wished they had known it and that was the
reason they adopted it.

Post by islander
Why was it kept so long? Nations were still using cryptography
machines based on wired rotors for that long. Now, there are pictures
of the Enigma machine on the Internet along with descriptions of how it
works. There is even an NSA museum where you can see one.
But, I don't think that these are the kind of secrets that you are
concerned about. Generally, it is not an easy thing to classify
material in the intelligence agencies.

Then how come we don't know anything about the supposed
"evidence" that Russia poisoned the ex-spy with a poison that
it says it destroyed all its stocks of long ago. I know the reason,
I'm pretty sure - there IS no such evidence. It's just the Cold
War starting up again.

Post by islander
It is a complicated process that
gets even more complicated as the level of classification goes up. They
take classification very seriously. When there are abuses, and there
are abuses, it has to be a conspiracy involving more than one person and
when there is more than one person involved the chances of it leaking
out increase with the number of people involved, even considering the
penalties for leaking.

We had "classified" information that Iraq had "WMD"s, didn't
we? Is there any difference between "classified" and baloney?
There doesn't seem to be.
Too bad about the Iraq war happening in between. Trillions
of dollars and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people.
Just one of those things, I guess. No worries though, some of
the truth has now come out, years later. You can always trust
the "intelligence" agencies.

That is a good example of how intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias. The Bush administration created a
special organization in the Pentagon to search out and cherry pick
intelligence and even just rumor if necessary to justify what they
wanted to justify. At the time, there was a lot of distrust of CIA and
the Bush administration wanted an independent source of "good"
intelligence. It was pretty much the press that blew the whistle on
that, but not without being sucked into some of the games that Bush and
especially Cheney were pulling like some of the intentional leaks to
Miller at the NYT. She appeared to have been a "useful idiot" like
people today seem to be propagating false information to disrupt our
political process and sew discontent. A nasty information game! This
is mostly not about secrets, but all taking place in a very public way.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
But, the truth almost always comes out. I say "almost" because there is
one case that I know of which is quite old for which someone went to a
great deal of trouble to keep it secret. That is the secret of Oak
Island. Something was buried quite deep with a number of hazards
inserted to prevent anyone recovering it - ever! The secret has
survived for hundreds of years despite all manner of treasure hunters
attempting to find the answer, be it treasure or deep dark secret. The
latest attempt was done in conjunction with a TV series about the secret
including dramatic music and found clues adding to the suspense. I was
interested in this well before it became fodder for entertainment. An
amazing and puzzling story!

"Oak Island" must be something that was talked about elsewhere.
I've never heard of it, and haven't read it here. There's an article
about "The Oak Island mystery" on Wikipedia, but it's not informative.

[rumpelstiltskin]

<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
We had "classified" information that Iraq had "WMD"s, didn't
we? Is there any difference between "classified" and baloney?
There doesn't seem to be.
Too bad about the Iraq war happening in between. Trillions
of dollars and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people.
Just one of those things, I guess. No worries though, some of
the truth has now come out, years later. You can always trust
the "intelligence" agencies.

That is a good example of how intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias. The Bush administration created a
special organization in the Pentagon to search out and cherry pick
intelligence and even just rumor if necessary to justify what they
wanted to justify. At the time, there was a lot of distrust of CIA and
the Bush administration wanted an independent source of "good"
intelligence. It was pretty much the press that blew the whistle on
that, but not without being sucked into some of the games that Bush and
especially Cheney were pulling like some of the intentional leaks to
Miller at the NYT. She appeared to have been a "useful idiot" like
people today seem to be propagating false information to disrupt our
political process and sew discontent. A nasty information game! This
is mostly not about secrets, but all taking place in a very public way.

There's no question that what people say is not a secret, because
they're saying it. What the subterranean reasons or pretexts are
for constructing scenarios is what's mostly hidden, or "secret".
That rationally shouldn't "promote" trust in government: it's a good
illustration of why it's a mistake to trust government.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
We had "classified" information that Iraq had "WMD"s, didn't
we? Is there any difference between "classified" and baloney?
There doesn't seem to be.
Too bad about the Iraq war happening in between. Trillions
of dollars and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people.
Just one of those things, I guess. No worries though, some of
the truth has now come out, years later. You can always trust
the "intelligence" agencies.

That is a good example of how intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias. The Bush administration created a
special organization in the Pentagon to search out and cherry pick
intelligence and even just rumor if necessary to justify what they
wanted to justify. At the time, there was a lot of distrust of CIA and
the Bush administration wanted an independent source of "good"
intelligence. It was pretty much the press that blew the whistle on
that, but not without being sucked into some of the games that Bush and
especially Cheney were pulling like some of the intentional leaks to
Miller at the NYT. She appeared to have been a "useful idiot" like
people today seem to be propagating false information to disrupt our
political process and sew discontent. A nasty information game! This
is mostly not about secrets, but all taking place in a very public way.

There's no question that what people say is not a secret, because
they're saying it. What the subterranean reasons or pretexts are
for constructing scenarios is what's mostly hidden, or "secret".
That rationally shouldn't "promote" trust in government: it's a good
illustration of why it's a mistake to trust government.

Do you remember Soupy Sales from 1965? He had a kids radio show one morning where he asked all the kids listening to go into their parents bedroom and look for green pieces of paper in their pants pocket with pictures of old men on them and send them to Soupy Sales. He got thousands of dollars and was kicked off the air for a couple weeks.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
We had "classified" information that Iraq had "WMD"s, didn't
we? Is there any difference between "classified" and baloney?
There doesn't seem to be.
Too bad about the Iraq war happening in between. Trillions
of dollars and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people.
Just one of those things, I guess. No worries though, some of
the truth has now come out, years later. You can always trust
the "intelligence" agencies.

That is a good example of how intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias. The Bush administration created a
special organization in the Pentagon to search out and cherry pick
intelligence and even just rumor if necessary to justify what they
wanted to justify. At the time, there was a lot of distrust of CIA and
the Bush administration wanted an independent source of "good"
intelligence. It was pretty much the press that blew the whistle on
that, but not without being sucked into some of the games that Bush and
especially Cheney were pulling like some of the intentional leaks to
Miller at the NYT. She appeared to have been a "useful idiot" like
people today seem to be propagating false information to disrupt our
political process and sew discontent. A nasty information game! This
is mostly not about secrets, but all taking place in a very public way.

There's no question that what people say is not a secret, because
they're saying it. What the subterranean reasons or pretexts are
for constructing scenarios is what's mostly hidden, or "secret".
That rationally shouldn't "promote" trust in government: it's a good
illustration of why it's a mistake to trust government.

Do you remember Soupy Sales from 1965? He had a kids radio show one morning where he asked all the kids listening to go into their parents bedroom and look for green pieces of paper in their pants pocket with pictures of old men on them and send them to Soupy Sales. He got thousands of dollars and was kicked off the air for a couple weeks.

I remember Soupy Sales, but I don't remember that!
He should have gone to jail for that, for sure, not just
kicked off the air for a couple of weeks!

I thought you must be joshing me, so I looked it up,
but and according to the infallible internet, it's true.


"The outcry from parents led to a suspension (most people
believe he was fired outright). Soupy jokes that he inspired
televangelists that now use the same basic technique."
http://www.tvparty.com/soupy2.html

(I do like his comment about televangelists though.)

[islander]

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
We had "classified" information that Iraq had "WMD"s, didn't
we? Is there any difference between "classified" and baloney?
There doesn't seem to be.
Too bad about the Iraq war happening in between. Trillions
of dollars and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people.
Just one of those things, I guess. No worries though, some of
the truth has now come out, years later. You can always trust
the "intelligence" agencies.

That is a good example of how intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias. The Bush administration created a
special organization in the Pentagon to search out and cherry pick
intelligence and even just rumor if necessary to justify what they
wanted to justify. At the time, there was a lot of distrust of CIA and
the Bush administration wanted an independent source of "good"
intelligence. It was pretty much the press that blew the whistle on
that, but not without being sucked into some of the games that Bush and
especially Cheney were pulling like some of the intentional leaks to
Miller at the NYT. She appeared to have been a "useful idiot" like
people today seem to be propagating false information to disrupt our
political process and sew discontent. A nasty information game! This
is mostly not about secrets, but all taking place in a very public way.

There's no question that what people say is not a secret, because
they're saying it. What the subterranean reasons or pretexts are
for constructing scenarios is what's mostly hidden, or "secret".
That rationally shouldn't "promote" trust in government: it's a good
illustration of why it's a mistake to trust government.

Not just government! We have seen a decline in trust of all
organizations. This is fueled by Libertarian dogma which places trust
only in the individual and I think that you can see the flaw in that.
If not, you have not been listening to Werner. Organizations exist for
good reasons and we should be working to improve them rather than tear
them down.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
We had "classified" information that Iraq had "WMD"s, didn't
we? Is there any difference between "classified" and baloney?
There doesn't seem to be.
Too bad about the Iraq war happening in between. Trillions
of dollars and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people.
Just one of those things, I guess. No worries though, some of
the truth has now come out, years later. You can always trust
the "intelligence" agencies.

That is a good example of how intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias. The Bush administration created a
special organization in the Pentagon to search out and cherry pick
intelligence and even just rumor if necessary to justify what they
wanted to justify. At the time, there was a lot of distrust of CIA and
the Bush administration wanted an independent source of "good"
intelligence. It was pretty much the press that blew the whistle on
that, but not without being sucked into some of the games that Bush and
especially Cheney were pulling like some of the intentional leaks to
Miller at the NYT. She appeared to have been a "useful idiot" like
people today seem to be propagating false information to disrupt our
political process and sew discontent. A nasty information game! This
is mostly not about secrets, but all taking place in a very public way.

There's no question that what people say is not a secret, because
they're saying it. What the subterranean reasons or pretexts are
for constructing scenarios is what's mostly hidden, or "secret".
That rationally shouldn't "promote" trust in government: it's a good
illustration of why it's a mistake to trust government.

Not just government! We have seen a decline in trust of all
organizations. This is fueled by Libertarian dogma which places trust
only in the individual and I think that you can see the flaw in that.
If not, you have not been listening to Werner. Organizations exist for
good reasons and we should be working to improve them rather than tear
them down.

What gave you the impression that I trust individuals
whom I don't know personally? You're making a
lot of stuff up out of nothing these days, or buying a
lot of stuff that other people have been making out of
nothing.

Let's return the USA to England. England has had its
problems in the 19th century, to be sure, but it seems
to have outgrown them now. The USA recently has
become a very dangerous wild-child. A little adult
supervision might be beneficial, assuming that England
has learnt it's lesson, and isn't just in a period of calm
between storms now. Is there any hope at all for the
human race, or is history doomed to be a tale of
continual screwups?

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
We had "classified" information that Iraq had "WMD"s, didn't
we? Is there any difference between "classified" and baloney?
There doesn't seem to be.
Too bad about the Iraq war happening in between. Trillions
of dollars and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people.
Just one of those things, I guess. No worries though, some of
the truth has now come out, years later. You can always trust
the "intelligence" agencies.

That is a good example of how intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias. The Bush administration created a
special organization in the Pentagon to search out and cherry pick
intelligence and even just rumor if necessary to justify what they
wanted to justify. At the time, there was a lot of distrust of CIA and
the Bush administration wanted an independent source of "good"
intelligence. It was pretty much the press that blew the whistle on
that, but not without being sucked into some of the games that Bush and
especially Cheney were pulling like some of the intentional leaks to
Miller at the NYT. She appeared to have been a "useful idiot" like
people today seem to be propagating false information to disrupt our
political process and sew discontent. A nasty information game! This
is mostly not about secrets, but all taking place in a very public way.

There's no question that what people say is not a secret, because
they're saying it. What the subterranean reasons or pretexts are
for constructing scenarios is what's mostly hidden, or "secret".
That rationally shouldn't "promote" trust in government: it's a good
illustration of why it's a mistake to trust government.

Not just government! We have seen a decline in trust of all
organizations. This is fueled by Libertarian dogma which places trust
only in the individual and I think that you can see the flaw in that.
If not, you have not been listening to Werner. Organizations exist for
good reasons and we should be working to improve them rather than tear
them down.

What gave you the impression that I trust individuals
whom I don't know personally?

What? How could you get that from what I said? Libertarians believe
that the only individual that you can trust is yourself and that
organizations threaten your freedom to act in your own self interest.
They believe that if everyone had freedom to act in their own self
interests that somehow everything would balance out. It doesn't and the
powerful come to dominate societies that are inclined in that direction.

This belief system is very naive. It might have worked for small tribes
of hunter-gatherers, but as soon as agriculture allowed larger groups of
people to exist, organizations along with laws became necessary.

The whole point is that we *cannot* trust individuals whom we do not
know personally. And we probably cannot trust individuals who we think
that we do know personally. It is only laws and organizations that make
it possible to live in groups of more than about 150 tribe members.

Post by rumpelstiltskin
You're making a
lot of stuff up out of nothing these days, or buying a
lot of stuff that other people have been making out of
nothing.
Let's return the USA to England. England has had its
problems in the 19th century, to be sure, but it seems
to have outgrown them now. The USA recently has
become a very dangerous wild-child. A little adult
supervision might be beneficial, assuming that England
has learnt it's lesson, and isn't just in a period of calm
between storms now. Is there any hope at all for the
human race, or is history doomed to be a tale of
continual screwups?

There is no benevolent leader to put our trust in. We have only our
knowledge, our laws, and our organizations. They survive individuals
who are prone to act in their own self interest. History has shown
that, while we have screwups, that knowledge, laws, and organizations
continue to improve.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
We had "classified" information that Iraq had "WMD"s, didn't
we? Is there any difference between "classified" and baloney?
There doesn't seem to be.
Too bad about the Iraq war happening in between. Trillions
of dollars and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people.
Just one of those things, I guess. No worries though, some of
the truth has now come out, years later. You can always trust
the "intelligence" agencies.

That is a good example of how intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias. The Bush administration created a
special organization in the Pentagon to search out and cherry pick
intelligence and even just rumor if necessary to justify what they
wanted to justify. At the time, there was a lot of distrust of CIA and
the Bush administration wanted an independent source of "good"
intelligence. It was pretty much the press that blew the whistle on
that, but not without being sucked into some of the games that Bush and
especially Cheney were pulling like some of the intentional leaks to
Miller at the NYT. She appeared to have been a "useful idiot" like
people today seem to be propagating false information to disrupt our
political process and sew discontent. A nasty information game! This
is mostly not about secrets, but all taking place in a very public way.

There's no question that what people say is not a secret, because
they're saying it. What the subterranean reasons or pretexts are
for constructing scenarios is what's mostly hidden, or "secret".
That rationally shouldn't "promote" trust in government: it's a good
illustration of why it's a mistake to trust government.

Not just government! We have seen a decline in trust of all
organizations. This is fueled by Libertarian dogma which places trust
only in the individual and I think that you can see the flaw in that.
If not, you have not been listening to Werner. Organizations exist for
good reasons and we should be working to improve them rather than tear
them down.

What gave you the impression that I trust individuals
whom I don't know personally?

What? How could you get that from what I said?

"This is fueled by Libertarian dogma which places trust
only in the individual and I think that you can see the
flaw in that."

I guess you meant the person himself rather than
people in general. That wasn't clear to me, and
I was replying to "in individuals in general."

Post by islander
Libertarians believe
that the only individual that you can trust is yourself and that
organizations threaten your freedom to act in your own self interest.
They believe that if everyone had freedom to act in their own self
interests that somehow everything would balance out. It doesn't and the
powerful come to dominate societies that are inclined in that direction.

I have no connection to "Libertarianism", and no interest in it.

Post by islander
This belief system is very naive. It might have worked for small tribes
of hunter-gatherers, but as soon as agriculture allowed larger groups of
people to exist, organizations along with laws became necessary.
The whole point is that we *cannot* trust individuals whom we do not
know personally. And we probably cannot trust individuals who we think
that we do know personally. It is only laws and organizations that make
it possible to live in groups of more than about 150 tribe members.

Now you're really confusing me. At first in your
clarification you seemed to me to mean by
"individual" the person himself, but now you seem
to mean by it "people as individuals".

As I mentioned, I have no interest in
"Libertarianism".

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
You're making a
lot of stuff up out of nothing these days, or buying a
lot of stuff that other people have been making out of
nothing.
Let's return the USA to England. England has had its
problems in the 19th century, to be sure, but it seems
to have outgrown them now. The USA recently has
become a very dangerous wild-child. A little adult
supervision might be beneficial, assuming that England
has learnt it's lesson, and isn't just in a period of calm
between storms now. Is there any hope at all for the
human race, or is history doomed to be a tale of
continual screwups?

There is no benevolent leader to put our trust in. We have only our
knowledge, our laws, and our organizations. They survive individuals
who are prone to act in their own self interest. History has shown
that, while we have screwups, that knowledge, laws, and organizations
continue to improve.

You've really lost me now. I have no idea what
you're talking about. If it's about US "intelligence"
you yourself seem to me to have stated why it
can't be trusted, with your phrase

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias.

Maybe not to you, but to me, "confirmation bias"
seems to be exactly what was wrong both with
blaming the poisoning of the ex-spy on Russia,
and with the assumption that Assad must have
been the one who ordered a poison bomb attack,
without any evidence and even contrary to sense.
Both those contentions, if they're taken as "truth"
rather than as conjectures with no evidence to
support them, are nothing but "confirmation bias".

If there's evidence, let's see it. If it's claimed
there's evidence but we're not allowed to see
it, then believing it would require a leap of faith
that I'm not prepared to make, since I, and many
other people, feel we've been deceived so often
that it's essentially routine for the government
to try to do it again.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
We had "classified" information that Iraq had "WMD"s, didn't
we? Is there any difference between "classified" and baloney?
There doesn't seem to be.
Too bad about the Iraq war happening in between. Trillions
of dollars and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people.
Just one of those things, I guess. No worries though, some of
the truth has now come out, years later. You can always trust
the "intelligence" agencies.

That is a good example of how intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias. The Bush administration created a
special organization in the Pentagon to search out and cherry pick
intelligence and even just rumor if necessary to justify what they
wanted to justify. At the time, there was a lot of distrust of CIA and
the Bush administration wanted an independent source of "good"
intelligence. It was pretty much the press that blew the whistle on
that, but not without being sucked into some of the games that Bush and
especially Cheney were pulling like some of the intentional leaks to
Miller at the NYT. She appeared to have been a "useful idiot" like
people today seem to be propagating false information to disrupt our
political process and sew discontent. A nasty information game! This
is mostly not about secrets, but all taking place in a very public way.

There's no question that what people say is not a secret, because
they're saying it. What the subterranean reasons or pretexts are
for constructing scenarios is what's mostly hidden, or "secret".
That rationally shouldn't "promote" trust in government: it's a good
illustration of why it's a mistake to trust government.

Not just government! We have seen a decline in trust of all
organizations. This is fueled by Libertarian dogma which places trust
only in the individual and I think that you can see the flaw in that.
If not, you have not been listening to Werner. Organizations exist for
good reasons and we should be working to improve them rather than tear
them down.

What gave you the impression that I trust individuals
whom I don't know personally?

What? How could you get that from what I said?

"This is fueled by Libertarian dogma which places trust
only in the individual and I think that you can see the
flaw in that."
I guess you meant the person himself rather than
people in general. That wasn't clear to me, and
I was replying to "in individuals in general."

Post by islander
Libertarians believe
that the only individual that you can trust is yourself and that
organizations threaten your freedom to act in your own self interest.
They believe that if everyone had freedom to act in their own self
interests that somehow everything would balance out. It doesn't and the
powerful come to dominate societies that are inclined in that direction.

I have no connection to "Libertarianism", and no interest in it.

Post by islander
This belief system is very naive. It might have worked for small tribes
of hunter-gatherers, but as soon as agriculture allowed larger groups of
people to exist, organizations along with laws became necessary.
The whole point is that we *cannot* trust individuals whom we do not
know personally. And we probably cannot trust individuals who we think
that we do know personally. It is only laws and organizations that make
it possible to live in groups of more than about 150 tribe members.

Now you're really confusing me. At first in your
clarification you seemed to me to mean by
"individual" the person himself, but now you seem
to mean by it "people as individuals".
As I mentioned, I have no interest in
"Libertarianism".

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
You're making a
lot of stuff up out of nothing these days, or buying a
lot of stuff that other people have been making out of
nothing.
Let's return the USA to England. England has had its
problems in the 19th century, to be sure, but it seems
to have outgrown them now. The USA recently has
become a very dangerous wild-child. A little adult
supervision might be beneficial, assuming that England
has learnt it's lesson, and isn't just in a period of calm
between storms now. Is there any hope at all for the
human race, or is history doomed to be a tale of
continual screwups?

There is no benevolent leader to put our trust in. We have only our
knowledge, our laws, and our organizations. They survive individuals
who are prone to act in their own self interest. History has shown
that, while we have screwups, that knowledge, laws, and organizations
continue to improve.

You've really lost me now. I have no idea what
you're talking about. If it's about US "intelligence"
you yourself seem to me to have stated why it
can't be trusted, with your phrase

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias.

You took that out of context. I was referring specifically to the
efforts of the GW Bush administration to justify the Iraq war.

We have another example in the Comey book. When the FBI briefed the
Trump administration on the Russian efforts to manipulate the US
election, they immediately launched into how they would spin this for
the press. Any interest in preventing it in the future? No.

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Maybe not to you, but to me, "confirmation bias"
seems to be exactly what was wrong both with
blaming the poisoning of the ex-spy on Russia,
and with the assumption that Assad must have
been the one who ordered a poison bomb attack,
without any evidence and even contrary to sense.
Both those contentions, if they're taken as "truth"
rather than as conjectures with no evidence to
support them, are nothing but "confirmation bias".
If there's evidence, let's see it. If it's claimed
there's evidence but we're not allowed to see
it, then believing it would require a leap of faith
that I'm not prepared to make, since I, and many
other people, feel we've been deceived so often
that it's essentially routine for the government
to try to do it again.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by mg
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
We had "classified" information that Iraq had "WMD"s, didn't
we? Is there any difference between "classified" and baloney?
There doesn't seem to be.
Too bad about the Iraq war happening in between. Trillions
of dollars and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people.
Just one of those things, I guess. No worries though, some of
the truth has now come out, years later. You can always trust
the "intelligence" agencies.

That is a good example of how intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias. The Bush administration created a
special organization in the Pentagon to search out and cherry pick
intelligence and even just rumor if necessary to justify what they
wanted to justify. At the time, there was a lot of distrust of CIA and
the Bush administration wanted an independent source of "good"
intelligence. It was pretty much the press that blew the whistle on
that, but not without being sucked into some of the games that Bush and
especially Cheney were pulling like some of the intentional leaks to
Miller at the NYT. She appeared to have been a "useful idiot" like
people today seem to be propagating false information to disrupt our
political process and sew discontent. A nasty information game! This
is mostly not about secrets, but all taking place in a very public way.

There's no question that what people say is not a secret, because
they're saying it. What the subterranean reasons or pretexts are
for constructing scenarios is what's mostly hidden, or "secret".
That rationally shouldn't "promote" trust in government: it's a good
illustration of why it's a mistake to trust government.

Not just government! We have seen a decline in trust of all
organizations. This is fueled by Libertarian dogma which places trust
only in the individual and I think that you can see the flaw in that.
If not, you have not been listening to Werner. Organizations exist for
good reasons and we should be working to improve them rather than tear
them down.

What gave you the impression that I trust individuals
whom I don't know personally?

What? How could you get that from what I said?

"This is fueled by Libertarian dogma which places trust
only in the individual and I think that you can see the
flaw in that."
I guess you meant the person himself rather than
people in general. That wasn't clear to me, and
I was replying to "in individuals in general."

Post by islander
Libertarians believe
that the only individual that you can trust is yourself and that
organizations threaten your freedom to act in your own self interest.
They believe that if everyone had freedom to act in their own self
interests that somehow everything would balance out. It doesn't and the
powerful come to dominate societies that are inclined in that direction.

I have no connection to "Libertarianism", and no interest in it.

Post by islander
This belief system is very naive. It might have worked for small tribes
of hunter-gatherers, but as soon as agriculture allowed larger groups of
people to exist, organizations along with laws became necessary.
The whole point is that we *cannot* trust individuals whom we do not
know personally. And we probably cannot trust individuals who we think
that we do know personally. It is only laws and organizations that make
it possible to live in groups of more than about 150 tribe members.

Now you're really confusing me. At first in your
clarification you seemed to me to mean by
"individual" the person himself, but now you seem
to mean by it "people as individuals".
As I mentioned, I have no interest in
"Libertarianism".

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
You're making a
lot of stuff up out of nothing these days, or buying a
lot of stuff that other people have been making out of
nothing.
Let's return the USA to England. England has had its
problems in the 19th century, to be sure, but it seems
to have outgrown them now. The USA recently has
become a very dangerous wild-child. A little adult
supervision might be beneficial, assuming that England
has learnt it's lesson, and isn't just in a period of calm
between storms now. Is there any hope at all for the
human race, or is history doomed to be a tale of
continual screwups?

There is no benevolent leader to put our trust in. We have only our
knowledge, our laws, and our organizations. They survive individuals
who are prone to act in their own self interest. History has shown
that, while we have screwups, that knowledge, laws, and organizations
continue to improve.

You've really lost me now. I have no idea what
you're talking about. If it's about US "intelligence"
you yourself seem to me to have stated why it
can't be trusted, with your phrase

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander
intelligence can be corrupted with what is
a federal level of confirmation bias.

You took that out of context. I was referring specifically to the
efforts of the GW Bush administration to justify the Iraq war.

Out of context or not, it is what it is. You can't
apply an experience for a situation that suits you
and then say it's out of context for another
situation just because that doesn't suit you!

You did give me a chuckle though.

You seem to be getting into "Newspeak".
"Out of context" is the latest,

Post by islander
We have another example in the Comey book. When the FBI briefed the
Trump administration on the Russian efforts to manipulate the US
election, they immediately launched into how they would spin this for
the press. Any interest in preventing it in the future? No.

I haven't seen any evidence for Russia "manipulating"
the US government. I have no doubt that Russia spied
on the US, and tried to influence politicians. It would
be ridiculous to assert that the USA doesn't do exactly
the same thing when it can, and much worse, in a
trench coat and dark glasses if deemed worth the risk.

I do know the USA manipulates other governments -
surely everyone knows that!, in much worse ways
than mere spying when it can get away with it, as
in that planeload of million-dollar packages that were
sent to Iraq to encourage compliance of the "friends"
in Iraq. I'm ticked off about that because I never
got my million-dollar package but my taxes helped
pay for those packages. The USA interferes with
other countries in ways far worse than spying or
bribing, as in financing, arming and training death
squads in El Salvador, and in trying to overthrow
the government of Cuba by invasion, and, I'm sure,
at least "assisting" in the overthrow the democratically
elected, and very popular, government of Chile
including the supposed "suicide" of Allende when the
fascists entered his presidential mansion. Allende
of course was then replaced by a such a horrific and
murderous military dictatorship that it remains
legendary to this day, but the champagne corks
were probably popping in the secret US government,
because the new government would be much more
compliant with serving the interests of American
billionaires, than the "communist" government of
Allende was.

Gosh, I wonder why I don't trust the government.
It's inexplicable.

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Maybe not to you, but to me, "confirmation bias"
seems to be exactly what was wrong both with
blaming the poisoning of the ex-spy on Russia,
and with the assumption that Assad must have
been the one who ordered a poison bomb attack,
without any evidence and even contrary to sense.
Both those contentions, if they're taken as "truth"
rather than as conjectures with no evidence to
support them, are nothing but "confirmation bias".
If there's evidence, let's see it. If it's claimed
there's evidence but we're not allowed to see
it, then believing it would require a leap of faith
that I'm not prepared to make, since I, and many
other people, feel we've been deceived so often
that it's essentially routine for the government
to try to do it again.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia

Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.

I am not questioning the wisdom of Trump's actions. I am merely
pointing out that if Trump colluded with Russia, his aggressive
actions against Russia might be expected to result in the release of
information that could lead to his impeachment -- so why take the
chance, unless he is innocent? BTW -- most of the British allies who
ejected a Russian diplomat, ejected just one.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia

Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.

I am not questioning the wisdom of Trump's actions. I am merely
pointing out that if Trump colluded with Russia, his aggressive
actions against Russia might be expected to result in the release of
information that could lead to his impeachment -- so why take the
chance, unless he is innocent? BTW -- most of the British allies who
ejected a Russian diplomat, ejected just one.

Russia plays chess while we play checkers. Make no mistake, they are
playing the long game while Trump flounder

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,

the

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia

Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.

I am not questioning the wisdom of Trump's actions. I am merely
pointing out that if Trump colluded with Russia, his aggressive
actions against Russia might be expected to result in the release of
information that could lead to his impeachment -- so why take the
chance, unless he is innocent? BTW -- most of the British allies who
ejected a Russian diplomat, ejected just one.

Russia plays chess while we play checkers. Make no mistake, they are
playing the long game while Trump flounders.

And Obama played what? Golf? The long game player we have to worry
about is China, not Russia. About 5 years ago China formulated its
Made In China 2025 Plan. China intends to soon become the world's
dominant industrial and economic super power.

"Made in China policy at centre of tariff war with US"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/04/made-in-china-policy-at-centre-of-tariff-war-with-us

The 20th century was the century of the United States, but the 21st
will likely be the century of China.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,

the

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia

Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.

I am not questioning the wisdom of Trump's actions. I am merely
pointing out that if Trump colluded with Russia, his aggressive
actions against Russia might be expected to result in the release of
information that could lead to his impeachment -- so why take the
chance, unless he is innocent? BTW -- most of the British allies who
ejected a Russian diplomat, ejected just one.

Russia plays chess while we play checkers. Make no mistake, they are
playing the long game while Trump flounders.

And Obama played what? Golf? The long game player we have to worry
about is China, not Russia. About 5 years ago China formulated its
Made In China 2025 Plan. China intends to soon become the world's
dominant industrial and economic super power.
"Made in China policy at centre of tariff war with US"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/04/made-in-china-policy-at-centre-of-tariff-war-with-us
The 20th century was the century of the United States, but the 21st
will likely be the century of China.

There you go again! Are you incapable of holding a conversation without
attempting to deflect the discussion to Obama, Clinton, etc.? Do you
really feel that

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,

the

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia

Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.

I am not questioning the wisdom of Trump's actions. I am merely
pointing out that if Trump colluded with Russia, his aggressive
actions against Russia might be expected to result in the release of
information that could lead to his impeachment -- so why take the
chance, unless he is innocent? BTW -- most of the British allies who
ejected a Russian diplomat, ejected just one.

Russia plays chess while we play checkers. Make no mistake, they are
playing the long game while Trump flounders.

And Obama played what? Golf? The long game player we have to worry
about is China, not Russia. About 5 years ago China formulated its
Made In China 2025 Plan. China intends to soon become the world's
dominant industrial and economic super power.
"Made in China policy at centre of tariff war with US"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/04/made-in-china-policy-at-centre-of-tariff-war-with-us
The 20th century was the century of the United States, but the 21st
will likely be the century of China.

There you go again! Are you incapable of holding a conversation without
attempting to deflect the discussion to Obama, Clinton, etc.? Do you
really feel that doing so improves your argument?

I like to think of these exchanges as a discussion, not an argument,
and certainly not one I am trying to "win". I am trying to explain my
position, but if you convince me of the logic and wisdom of your view
of an issue, I am perfectly willing to change my mind, and I hope you
are too.

Back to my previous post, you said ...
"Russia plays chess while we play checkers. Make no mistake, they are
playing the long game while Trump flounders."

Trump might be floundering, but I don't see that Russia has a long
game. Virtually their only export is oil. Take their steel production,
it is less than 8% of China, and we are barely at 10%.
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/steel-production

What do we import from Russia? A little oil, and that is about it. If
Russia has an interest in the US it is in restraining our oil
production. US fracking has depressed world oil prices, and nearly
bankrupted Russia. Russia would like Trump to be an opponent of
fracking and US oil production in general, but does that sound like
Trump -- or Obama? Their other interest is in aiding Iran in its
efforts to control the Persian Gulf and Middle East oil production,
while maintaining a connection to the Med through Syria and Lebanon.
Assad is a key element in Iran's plan, which is why we have been
floundering around in Syria for the last six years. I certainly have
mixed feelings on that one. Lastly Putin seems interested in restoring
at least some of the old Soviet empire. I'm not sure what that will
get him. You won't be buying a Russian car, phone, or TV in this
lifetime. The Chinese, on the other hand, have probably already made
your phone, and many of the products in your home. They have a genuine
long game, Plan 2025, as well as the brains and ability to achieve it.

"China Now Has the Most Valuable AI Startup in the World"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-09/sensetime-snags-alibaba-funding-at-a-record-3-billion-valuation

"China is eager to develop smart cities to cater to an
autonomous-driving revolution.
Nearly 300 Chinese regions and have already introduced projects for
"smart cities" controlled by artificial intelligence that can be
optimized for autonomous transportation."
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-preparing-for-a-trillion-dollar-autonomous-driving-revolution-2017-12

"China’s government aims to raise as much as 200 billion yuan ($31.5
billion) to invest in homegrown chip companies and accelerate its
ambition of building a world-class semiconductor industry ..."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-01/china-is-said-raising-up-to-31-5-billion-to-fuel-chip-vision

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by wolfbat359

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population.

Indeed,

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander
the

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?

Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia

Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.

I am not questioning the wisdom of Trump's actions. I am merely
pointing out that if Trump colluded with Russia, his aggressive
actions against Russia might be expected to result in the release of
information that could lead to his impeachment -- so why take the
chance, unless he is innocent? BTW -- most of the British allies who
ejected a Russian diplomat, ejected just one.

Russia plays chess while we play checkers. Make no mistake, they are
playing the long game while Trump flounders.

And Obama played what? Golf? The long game player we have to worry
about is China, not Russia. About 5 years ago China formulated its
Made In China 2025 Plan. China intends to soon become the world's
dominant industrial and economic super power.
"Made in China policy at centre of tariff war with US"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/04/made-in-china-policy-at-centre-of-tariff-war-with-us
The 20th century was the century of the United States, but the 21st
will likely be the century of China.

There you go again! Are you incapable of holding a conversation without
attempting to deflect the discussion to Obama, Clinton, etc.? Do you
really feel that doing so improves your argument?

I like to think of these exchanges as a discussion, not an argument,
and certainly not one I am trying to "win". I am trying to explain my
position, but if you convince me of the logic and wisdom of your view
of an issue, I am perfectly willing to change my mind, and I hope you
are too.
Back to my previous post, you said ...
"Russia plays chess while we play checkers. Make no mistake, they are
playing the long game while Trump flounders."
Trump might be floundering, but I don't see that Russia has a long
game. Virtually their only export is oil. Take their steel production,
it is less than 8% of China, and we are barely at 10%.
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/steel-production
What do we import from Russia? A little oil, and that is about it. If
Russia has an interest in the US it is in restraining our oil
production. US fracking has depressed world oil prices, and nearly
bankrupted Russia. Russia would like Trump to be an opponent of
fracking and US oil production in general, but does that sound like
Trump -- or Obama? Their other interest is in aiding Iran in its
efforts to control the Persian Gulf and Middle East oil production,
while maintaining a connection to the Med through Syria and Lebanon.
Assad is a key element in Iran's plan, which is why we have been
floundering around in Syria for the last six years. I certainly have
mixed feelings on that one. Lastly Putin seems interested in restoring
at least some of the old Soviet empire. I'm not sure what that will
get him. You won't be buying a Russian car, phone, or TV in this
lifetime. The Chinese, on the other hand, have probably already made
your phone, and many of the products in your home. They have a genuine
long game, Plan 2025, as well as the brains and ability to achieve it.
"China Now Has the Most Valuable AI Startup in the World"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-09/sensetime-snags-alibaba-funding-at-a-record-3-billion-valuation
"China is eager to develop smart cities to cater to an
autonomous-driving revolution.
Nearly 300 Chinese regions and have already introduced projects for
"smart cities" controlled by artificial intelligence that can be
optimized for autonomous transportation."
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-preparing-for-a-trillion-dollar-autonomous-driving-revolution-2017-12
"China’s government aims to raise as much as 200 billion yuan ($31.5
billion) to invest in homegrown chip companies and accelerate its
ambition of building a world-class semiconductor industry ..."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-01/china-is-said-raising-up-to-31-5-billion-to-fuel-chip-vision

You are probably familiar with The Great Game, a description of the
striving for power in the 19th century, especially between the British
and Russian empires. Putin wants to restore the Russian empire, if not
in the glory that was the 19th century, then at least the glory that he
felt in the Soviet Union. His goals are to diminish the power of the
European Union and especially NATO which he sees as a threat to his
western expansion into what was previously part of the Soviet Union.
His interest in Syria is a port on the Mediterranean. So, his goals are
not specific to consumer products. It is about power.

Gee, how different from the United States and NATO - NOT!

Post by wolfbat359
China has an entirely different strategy. While it includes increasing
influence in other countries, their strategy is primarily about commerce
with the long term goal of improving their economy for a very large
internal population. Even their efforts to claim territory in the China
Sea is primarily about protecting shipping lanes for the purpose of
commerce. Personally, I don't see them invading other countries. It
would mess up the opportunity to trade with them!

Creating and then claiming their own islands in the middle
of Japanese and Filipino territory is an interesting twist.

On a somewhat different subject, it seems geographically
odd that after WWII Russia claimed and got ALL the Kyril
(Kuril) islands, including one that lies largely within a bay on
Hokkaido. There's a heartbreaking story that the Japanese
there were forced to leave, but weren't allowed to take their
pets with them. Dogs were running frantically along the
shores as the ships were leaving, some of them trying to
swim out to the ships. Humans can be so lousy.
https://tinyurl.com/ya847doy

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Gee, how different from the United States and NATO - NOT!

How many countries has the US annexed since WWII?

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Gee, how different from the United States and NATO - NOT!

How many countries has the US annexed since WWII?

How many countries has the US f****d up since WWII?

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Gee, how different from the United States and NATO - NOT!

How many countries has the US annexed since WWII?

How many countries has the US f****d up since WWII?

Your point is well taken depending on how you define "f****d up" and
even one is too many. Hubris does not respect national boundaries.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Gee, how different from the United States and NATO - NOT!

How many countries has the US annexed since WWII?

How many countries has the US f****d up since WWII?

Your point is well taken depending on how you define "f****d up" and
even one is too many. Hubris does not respect national boundaries.

Crimea was part of the USSR and then of Russia from the fall of
the Ottoman Empire until 1954 when it was given by Khrushchev to
the Ukrainian SSR, which was already bigger than Ukraine had ever
been. The people in Crimea are Russian and want to be part of
Russia, not of the Ukraine. Here's the history of Ukraine again,
not that it will do any good against relentless propaganda.
https://tinyurl.com/yd35b465

Ukraine was then "owned" by Russia until 1991, when the
USSR collapsed and all of what had been the Ukrainian SSR,
including Crimea which was tacked on by Khrushchev. It,
including the pieces that had been added on over the centuries
which vastly increased its size (see map at URL above)
declared its independence, just as Virginia declared its
independence from the USA about 1860. The USA wouldn't
put up with that and waged war to get Virginia back even
though that wasn't what the people of Virginia wanted.
Ukraine (not including Crimea) is in an iffy state now, since
Russia wants it back but it doesn't look like it's going to get
it. That doesn't include Crimea which WANTS to be part
of Russia, just as the new state of West Virginia WANTED
to remain part of the USA.

Marching on relentlessly to WWIII. If the USA keeps
f*****g with Syria, including attacking it with missiles,
and then the USSR tries to shoot down the missiles, the
world will be in a sorry and very dangerous condition.
We've learnt nothing from the past, not even from the
recent past, apparently. Propaganda and unsupported
allegations rule. That's a recipe for war if there ever
was one.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Gee, how different from the United States and NATO - NOT!

How many countries has the US annexed since WWII?

How many countries has the US f****d up since WWII?

Your point is well taken depending on how you define "f****d up" and
even one is too many. Hubris does not respect national boundaries.

Crimea was part of the USSR and then of Russia from the fall of
the Ottoman Empire until 1954 when it was given by Khrushchev to
the Ukrainian SSR, which was already bigger than Ukraine had ever
been. The people in Crimea are Russian and want to be part of
Russia, not of the Ukraine. Here's the history of Ukraine again,
not that it will do any good against relentless propaganda.
https://tinyurl.com/yd35b465
Ukraine was then "owned" by Russia until 1991, when the
USSR collapsed and all of what had been the Ukrainian SSR,
including Crimea which was tacked on by Khrushchev. It,
including the pieces that had been added on over the centuries
which vastly increased its size (see map at URL above)
declared its independence, just as Virginia declared its
independence from the USA about 1860. The USA wouldn't
put up with that and waged war to get Virginia back even
though that wasn't what the people of Virginia wanted.
Ukraine (not including Crimea) is in an iffy state now, since
Russia wants it back but it doesn't look like it's going to get
it. That doesn't include Crimea which WANTS to be part
of Russia, just as the new state of West Virginia WANTED
to remain part of the USA.

Yes, you have made this argument before. I suspect that your position
on Crimea is based largely on the referendum that was held in 2014 where
the residents of Crimea expressed a preference to be governed by Russia.
This occurred at the time that Russia had moved into Crimea and had
taken control of military bases and ports. This also happened at a time
of governmental disorder in Kiev. Was it a valid referendum? I don't
know. Supposedly 60% of Crimeans are of Russian descent and support a
return to Russian rule. The other 40% are the problem. Within that 40%
are the Tartars who suffered under Soviet rule and most of them were
forced to move in the '40s. The 40% include those who have returned.
It seems to me that the Russians took advantage of the situation to take
control of Crimea and gain access to the Black Sea. Frankly, I don't
know if the interests and fears of the 40% could then or can now be
resolved. I do think that they should be given the opportunity to
choose in a more stable time and without outside interference if that is
possible.

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Marching on relentlessly to WWIII. If the USA keeps
f*****g with Syria, including attacking it with missiles,
and then the USSR tries to shoot down the missiles, the
world will be in a sorry and very dangerous condition.
We've learnt nothing from the past, not even from the
recent past, apparently. Propaganda and unsupported
allegations rule. That's a recipe for war if there ever
was one.

I agree that Syria has gotten a lot more dangerous and I worry that the
current administration is much too unpredictable to prevent our
involvement from growing out of control. Who provided Syria with the
chemical weapons? I thought that all of them had been removed and
destroyed. I could imagine that Syria could build chlorine gas bombs
pretty easily, but if they find evidence of sarin gas, it means that
there is another player outside Syria involved.

Once again, we have a case where international inspectors are going to
the site of the last attack to attempt to determine what actually
happened. Will we wait until they report back before launching a
military attack? Will we believe what they have to say or has the
decision already been made and will ignore any information that
conflicts with that decision?

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Gee, how different from the United States and NATO - NOT!

How many countries has the US annexed since WWII?

How many countries has the US f****d up since WWII?

Your point is well taken depending on how you define "f****d up" and
even one is too many. Hubris does not respect national boundaries.

Crimea was part of the USSR and then of Russia from the fall of
the Ottoman Empire until 1954 when it was given by Khrushchev to
the Ukrainian SSR, which was already bigger than Ukraine had ever
been. The people in Crimea are Russian and want to be part of
Russia, not of the Ukraine. Here's the history of Ukraine again,
not that it will do any good against relentless propaganda.
https://tinyurl.com/yd35b465
Ukraine was then "owned" by Russia until 1991, when the
USSR collapsed and all of what had been the Ukrainian SSR,
including Crimea which was tacked on by Khrushchev. It,
including the pieces that had been added on over the centuries
which vastly increased its size (see map at URL above)
declared its independence, just as Virginia declared its
independence from the USA about 1860. The USA wouldn't
put up with that and waged war to get Virginia back even
though that wasn't what the people of Virginia wanted.
Ukraine (not including Crimea) is in an iffy state now, since
Russia wants it back but it doesn't look like it's going to get
it. That doesn't include Crimea which WANTS to be part
of Russia, just as the new state of West Virginia WANTED
to remain part of the USA.

Yes, you have made this argument before.

I didn't think I'd mentioned West Virginia before, but maybe
I did.

Post by islander
I suspect that your position
on Crimea is based largely on the referendum that was held in 2014 where
the residents of Crimea expressed a preference to be governed by Russia.
This occurred at the time that Russia had moved into Crimea and had
taken control of military bases and ports. This also happened at a time
of governmental disorder in Kiev. Was it a valid referendum?

I see no reason to say it wasn't, except that it doesn't
conform to the USA's "confirmation bias". The people in
Crimea are mostly Russian. Crimea is connected to what
is now Ukraine by a stringy isthmus, but Crimea on the
east is just a ferry ride away from Russia.

Post by islander
I don't
know. Supposedly 60% of Crimeans are of Russian descent and support a
return to Russian rule. The other 40% are the problem. Within that 40%
are the Tartars who suffered under Soviet rule and most of them were
forced to move in the '40s. The 40% include those who have returned.
It seems to me that the Russians took advantage of the situation to take
control of Crimea and gain access to the Black Sea. Frankly, I don't
know if the interests and fears of the 40% could then or can now be
resolved. I do think that they should be given the opportunity to
choose in a more stable time and without outside interference if that is
possible.

It was a referendum, decided by vote, right? Was anybody
not allowed to vote?

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Marching on relentlessly to WWIII. If the USA keeps
f*****g with Syria, including attacking it with missiles,
and then the USSR tries to shoot down the missiles, the
world will be in a sorry and very dangerous condition.
We've learnt nothing from the past, not even from the
recent past, apparently. Propaganda and unsupported
allegations rule. That's a recipe for war if there ever
was one.

I agree that Syria has gotten a lot more dangerous and I worry that the
current administration is much too unpredictable to prevent our
involvement from growing out of control.

It's been out of control for a long time now IMV, since
long before Trump was president.

Post by islander
Who provided Syria with the
chemical weapons? I thought that all of them had been removed and
destroyed. I could imagine that Syria could build chlorine gas bombs
pretty easily, but if they find evidence of sarin gas, it means that
there is another player outside Syria involved.

Why the heck would they do that? It's an insane
supposition - pure "confirmation bias" to use your phrase.
Isis is still hiding out in Syria. It by far has the most to gain
by pulling a stunt like that, and is certainly vicious enough
to do it. Has the whole Euro-American world gone mad?
I think it has.

Post by islander
Once again, we have a case where international inspectors are going to
the site of the last attack to attempt to determine what actually
happened. Will we wait until they report back before launching a
military attack? Will we believe what they have to say or has the
decision already been made and will ignore any information that
conflicts with that decision?

We'll just kick them out if they don't play ball, perhaps,
as we did with Hans Blix. Anyhow, if I were Assad, there's
no way I'd allow the USA and Europe to impose international
inspectors on me at this point. I'd feel like I was being asked
to allow a shipload of scorpions into Syria to see what
damage they could do, because I'm sure they'll not be like
Hans Blix, they'll be "confirmation biased". We killed Qadafi
and Saddam, and bad as their countries were, they're much
worse now. Now we expect Assad and the people on the
street in Syria to let us in? Fageddaboutit!

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Gee, how different from the United States and NATO - NOT!

How many countries has the US annexed since WWII?

How many countries has the US f****d up since WWII?

Your point is well taken depending on how you define "f****d up" and
even one is too many. Hubris does not respect national boundaries.

Crimea was part of the USSR and then of Russia from the fall of
the Ottoman Empire until 1954 when it was given by Khrushchev to
the Ukrainian SSR, which was already bigger than Ukraine had ever
been. The people in Crimea are Russian and want to be part of
Russia, not of the Ukraine. Here's the history of Ukraine again,
not that it will do any good against relentless propaganda.
https://tinyurl.com/yd35b465
Ukraine was then "owned" by Russia until 1991, when the
USSR collapsed and all of what had been the Ukrainian SSR,
including Crimea which was tacked on by Khrushchev. It,
including the pieces that had been added on over the centuries
which vastly increased its size (see map at URL above)
declared its independence, just as Virginia declared its
independence from the USA about 1860. The USA wouldn't
put up with that and waged war to get Virginia back even
though that wasn't what the people of Virginia wanted.
Ukraine (not including Crimea) is in an iffy state now, since
Russia wants it back but it doesn't look like it's going to get
it. That doesn't include Crimea which WANTS to be part
of Russia, just as the new state of West Virginia WANTED
to remain part of the USA.

Yes, you have made this argument before.

I didn't think I'd mentioned West Virginia before, but maybe
I did.

No, but you made the argument about the Russian heritage in the Crimea
before. The fact remains that Crimea was a part of the Ukraine and
Russia exploited the instability in Kiev to capture territory that did
not belong to them.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
I suspect that your position
on Crimea is based largely on the referendum that was held in 2014 where
the residents of Crimea expressed a preference to be governed by Russia.
This occurred at the time that Russia had moved into Crimea and had
taken control of military bases and ports. This also happened at a time
of governmental disorder in Kiev. Was it a valid referendum?

I see no reason to say it wasn't, except that it doesn't
conform to the USA's "confirmation bias". The people in
Crimea are mostly Russian. Crimea is connected to what
is now Ukraine by a stringy isthmus, but Crimea on the
east is just a ferry ride away from Russia.

60% Russian heritage is not mostly Russian. Most of the Russian
heritage was by virtue of forced migration in the early '30s.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
I don't
know. Supposedly 60% of Crimeans are of Russian descent and support a
return to Russian rule. The other 40% are the problem. Within that 40%
are the Tartars who suffered under Soviet rule and most of them were
forced to move in the '40s. The 40% include those who have returned.
It seems to me that the Russians took advantage of the situation to take
control of Crimea and gain access to the Black Sea. Frankly, I don't
know if the interests and fears of the 40% could then or can now be
resolved. I do think that they should be given the opportunity to
choose in a more stable time and without outside interference if that is
possible.

It was a referendum, decided by vote, right? Was anybody
not allowed to vote?

You are assuming that whenever a people decide to vote for a change in
which government they will subject themselves to that that settles it.
That would be a system that would be highly susceptible to instability.
National allegiance is not subject to the whims of mob rule.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Marching on relentlessly to WWIII. If the USA keeps
f*****g with Syria, including attacking it with missiles,
and then the USSR tries to shoot down the missiles, the
world will be in a sorry and very dangerous condition.
We've learnt nothing from the past, not even from the
recent past, apparently. Propaganda and unsupported
allegations rule. That's a recipe for war if there ever
was one.

I agree that Syria has gotten a lot more dangerous and I worry that the
current administration is much too unpredictable to prevent our
involvement from growing out of control.

It's been out of control for a long time now IMV, since
long before Trump was president.

Weren't you one of those who said that we should stay out of Syria?

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Who provided Syria with the
chemical weapons? I thought that all of them had been removed and
destroyed. I could imagine that Syria could build chlorine gas bombs
pretty easily, but if they find evidence of sarin gas, it means that
there is another player outside Syria involved.

Why the heck would they do that? It's an insane
supposition - pure "confirmation bias" to use your phrase.
Isis is still hiding out in Syria. It by far has the most to gain
by pulling a stunt like that, and is certainly vicious enough
to do it. Has the whole Euro-American world gone mad?
I think it has.

Why would it be confirmation bias to ask if Russia was not diligent in
assuring that all the sarin gas was removed from Syria?

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Once again, we have a case where international inspectors are going to
the site of the last attack to attempt to determine what actually
happened. Will we wait until they report back before launching a
military attack? Will we believe what they have to say or has the
decision already been made and will ignore any information that
conflicts with that decision?

We'll just kick them out if they don't play ball, perhaps,
as we did with Hans Blix. Anyhow, if I were Assad, there's
no way I'd allow the USA and Europe to impose international
inspectors on me at this point. I'd feel like I was being asked
to allow a shipload of scorpions into Syria to see what
damage they could do, because I'm sure they'll not be like
Hans Blix, they'll be "confirmation biased". We killed Qadafi
and Saddam, and bad as their countries were, they're much
worse now. Now we expect Assad and the people on the
street in Syria to let us in? Fageddaboutit!

It is Russia that is using their veto in the Security Council to prevent
access for UN inspectors. If they are innocent, why would they care?
If some other party is responsible, wouldn't Russia want an independent
investigation?

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Gee, how different from the United States and NATO - NOT!

How many countries has the US annexed since WWII?

How many countries has the US f****d up since WWII?

Your point is well taken depending on how you define "f****d up" and
even one is too many. Hubris does not respect national boundaries.

Crimea was part of the USSR and then of Russia from the fall of
the Ottoman Empire until 1954 when it was given by Khrushchev to
the Ukrainian SSR, which was already bigger than Ukraine had ever
been. The people in Crimea are Russian and want to be part of
Russia, not of the Ukraine. Here's the history of Ukraine again,
not that it will do any good against relentless propaganda.
https://tinyurl.com/yd35b465
Ukraine was then "owned" by Russia until 1991, when the
USSR collapsed and all of what had been the Ukrainian SSR,
including Crimea which was tacked on by Khrushchev. It,
including the pieces that had been added on over the centuries
which vastly increased its size (see map at URL above)
declared its independence, just as Virginia declared its
independence from the USA about 1860. The USA wouldn't
put up with that and waged war to get Virginia back even
though that wasn't what the people of Virginia wanted.
Ukraine (not including Crimea) is in an iffy state now, since
Russia wants it back but it doesn't look like it's going to get
it. That doesn't include Crimea which WANTS to be part
of Russia, just as the new state of West Virginia WANTED
to remain part of the USA.

Yes, you have made this argument before.

I didn't think I'd mentioned West Virginia before, but maybe
I did.

No, but you made the argument about the Russian heritage in the Crimea
before. The fact remains that Crimea was a part of the Ukraine and
Russia exploited the instability in Kiev to capture territory that did
not belong to them.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
I suspect that your position
on Crimea is based largely on the referendum that was held in 2014 where
the residents of Crimea expressed a preference to be governed by Russia.
This occurred at the time that Russia had moved into Crimea and had
taken control of military bases and ports. This also happened at a time
of governmental disorder in Kiev. Was it a valid referendum?

I see no reason to say it wasn't, except that it doesn't
conform to the USA's "confirmation bias". The people in
Crimea are mostly Russian. Crimea is connected to what
is now Ukraine by a stringy isthmus, but Crimea on the
east is just a ferry ride away from Russia.

60% Russian heritage is not mostly Russian. Most of the Russian
heritage was by virtue of forced migration in the early '30s.

That's who the population is now, and Crimea was NEVER
part of Ukraine before Khrushchev appended it to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954. The Ukrainian SSR no longer exists.
Crimea was part of the Lithuanian Empire, then the Ottoman
Empire, then the Russian Empire, then the Soviet Empire.

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
I don't
know. Supposedly 60% of Crimeans are of Russian descent and support a
return to Russian rule. The other 40% are the problem. Within that 40%
are the Tartars who suffered under Soviet rule and most of them were
forced to move in the '40s. The 40% include those who have returned.
It seems to me that the Russians took advantage of the situation to take
control of Crimea and gain access to the Black Sea. Frankly, I don't
know if the interests and fears of the 40% could then or can now be
resolved. I do think that they should be given the opportunity to
choose in a more stable time and without outside interference if that is
possible.

It was a referendum, decided by vote, right? Was anybody
not allowed to vote?

You are assuming that whenever a people decide to vote for a change in
which government they will subject themselves to that that settles it.
That would be a system that would be highly susceptible to instability.
National allegiance is not subject to the whims of mob rule.

The union with the Ukrainian SSR was forced upon
the people living in Crimea. They probably didn't
care much at the time since everything was run from
Moscow and the SSR's didn't have much say of their
own. That was then though, and not the same as now.
The people of Crimea want independence from
modern Ukraine.

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Marching on relentlessly to WWIII. If the USA keeps
f*****g with Syria, including attacking it with missiles,
and then the USSR tries to shoot down the missiles, the
world will be in a sorry and very dangerous condition.
We've learnt nothing from the past, not even from the
recent past, apparently. Propaganda and unsupported
allegations rule. That's a recipe for war if there ever
was one.

I agree that Syria has gotten a lot more dangerous and I worry that the
current administration is much too unpredictable to prevent our
involvement from growing out of control.

It's been out of control for a long time now IMV, since
long before Trump was president.

Weren't you one of those who said that we should stay out of Syria?

Yes, and I still say that.

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Who provided Syria with the
chemical weapons? I thought that all of them had been removed and
destroyed. I could imagine that Syria could build chlorine gas bombs
pretty easily, but if they find evidence of sarin gas, it means that
there is another player outside Syria involved.

I imagine that Allah provides Syria with chlorine gas
now. Russia used to, I'll accept that since although I
wasn't following it at the time, that was a different
age when proof was important, so there was probably
proof.

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Why the heck would they do that? It's an insane
supposition - pure "confirmation bias" to use your phrase.
Isis is still hiding out in Syria. It by far has the most to gain
by pulling a stunt like that, and is certainly vicious enough
to do it. Has the whole Euro-American world gone mad?
I think it has.

Why would it be confirmation bias to ask if Russia was not diligent in
assuring that all the sarin gas was removed from Syria?

Oh gosh, the USA used to have poisoned gas too,
so they must still have it. It's only necessary to
say such a thing, it's not necessary to prove it.

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Once again, we have a case where international inspectors are going to
the site of the last attack to attempt to determine what actually
happened. Will we wait until they report back before launching a
military attack? Will we believe what they have to say or has the
decision already been made and will ignore any information that
conflicts with that decision?

We'll just kick them out if they don't play ball, perhaps,
as we did with Hans Blix. Anyhow, if I were Assad, there's
no way I'd allow the USA and Europe to impose international
inspectors on me at this point. I'd feel like I was being asked
to allow a shipload of scorpions into Syria to see what
damage they could do, because I'm sure they'll not be like
Hans Blix, they'll be "confirmation biased". We killed Qadafi
and Saddam, and bad as their countries were, they're much
worse now. Now we expect Assad and the people on the
street in Syria to let us in? Fageddaboutit!

It is Russia that is using their veto in the Security Council to prevent
access for UN inspectors. If they are innocent, why would they care?
If some other party is responsible, wouldn't Russia want an independent
investigation?

Maybe they don't trust the Security Council since
almost everybody in it is hostile to Russia and is
willing to exercise "confirmation bias" with zero
proof to pin anything they want on Russia.

I hear that Trump is bombing Damascus as of
today. No response from Russia yet, that I've heard.
I started looking it up, but even as I was typing this
sentence, a snippet about it came on the telly, to
be expanded on at 11:00 PM. I'll be watching
unless I fall asleep. Now there's something I think
I can trust the news for, because they probably
have video, and admissions from the people
doing the bombing that they think it's a good thing.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.

I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.

There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 07:22:23 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
<snip>

Post by islander
The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.

Go for it, I say. Ham-handed is better than the nothing we've had
for years and years and years, while the USA turns more and more
into an oligarchy, assisted even by the Supreme Court.

Post by islander
I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.

I don't like any of those deals, including NAFTA and the WTO.

Post by islander
There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the not too distant future.

The USA shouldn't IMV, have any control over how other
sovereign nations run their countries. The oligarch class
is not a super-government that should have control over
the whole world.

Chopin said "I am a revolutionary", and I certainly admire
him over any politician or oligarch.
https://tinyurl.com/ycdm9o2h
That URL mentions John Field. A couple of days ago I turned
on the radio and was perplexed to hear what sounded just
like Chopin, except that it was orchestral and Chopin didn't
write any orchestral music after his two great Piano Concerti
at age 18. Finally the music ended, and the announcer said
it was John Field. I nearly slapped myself for not realizing
that. Just as "Marlowe was Shakespeare before Shakespeare
was Shakespeare", Field was Chopin before Chopin was
Chopin. And Field also wrote 8 mature piano concerti, of
which the one I'd been listening to was #3.

The above URL does make the mistake of calling Field
"English". He was Irish.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.
I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.
There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the not too distant future.

I am not in the Trump is always right camp, but are you aware that
because of the much lower cost of Chinese steel we have been slowly
closing steel plants for years, and the last ones were believed to
have about 3 years to live. There is a pretty strong argument that we
have a vital national interest in maintaing domestic steel and
aluminum industries. A soy bean farmer can grow something else, but a
shoe factory can't smelt steel.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the

very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.
I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.
There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the not too distant future.

I am not in the Trump is always right camp, but are you aware that
because of the much lower cost of Chinese steel we have been slowly
closing steel plants for years, and the last ones were believed to
have about 3 years to live. There is a pretty strong argument that we
have a vital national interest in maintaing domestic steel and
aluminum industries. A soy bean farmer can grow something else, but a
shoe factory can't smelt steel.

There is a LOT more to that story. Following WWII, we didn't invest in
upgrading the steel mills while we invested in replacing the steel mills
in war ravaged Japan with modern equipment. We lost the steel mills
because it was cheaper for companies to buy steel from Japan and then
other Asian countries who made the investment. I saw the steel mills
close in Pennsylvania and good ridden! They were a blight on Pittsburgh
and no-one wanted to step up to clean up the mess that they left behind
in the rush to Japan. There was some interest for a while in boutique
mills that specialized in unique alloys. I don't know what happened to
that - I stopped following it years ago. Then, there was Alabama where
my FIL wanted me to go to work after I graduated from college. Forget
about that! Alabama was just one more step to the bottom.

We now have an economy that is much more dependent on steel that we can
purchase elsewhere. In fact, we get very little steel from China. Most
of our steel comes from Canada 16.7%, Brazil 13.2%, South Korea 9.7% and
Mexico 9.4%. Much better that we focus on high value added
manufacturing rather than attempting to subsidize industries that have
shown no interest in locating domestically.

As to aluminum, we have a massive plant on the mainland near here made
possible with very low cost energy. It is heavily automated and doesn't
employ many people (less than 600). We see ships bringing bauxite

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,

the

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com
very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.
I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.
There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the not too distant future.

I am not in the Trump is always right camp, but are you aware that
because of the much lower cost of Chinese steel we have been slowly
closing steel plants for years, and the last ones were believed to
have about 3 years to live. There is a pretty strong argument that we
have a vital national interest in maintaing domestic steel and
aluminum industries. A soy bean farmer can grow something else, but a
shoe factory can't smelt steel.

There is a LOT more to that story. Following WWII, we didn't invest in
upgrading the steel mills while we invested in replacing the steel mills
in war ravaged Japan with modern equipment. We lost the steel mills
because it was cheaper for companies to buy steel from Japan and then
other Asian countries who made the investment. I saw the steel mills
close in Pennsylvania and good ridden! They were a blight on Pittsburgh
and no-one wanted to step up to clean up the mess that they left behind
in the rush to Japan. There was some interest for a while in boutique
mills that specialized in unique alloys. I don't know what happened to
that - I stopped following it years ago. Then, there was Alabama where
my FIL wanted me to go to work after I graduated from college. Forget
about that! Alabama was just one more step to the bottom.
We now have an economy that is much more dependent on steel that we can
purchase elsewhere. In fact, we get very little steel from China. Most
of our steel comes from Canada 16.7%, Brazil 13.2%, South Korea 9.7% and
Mexico 9.4%. Much better that we focus on high value added
manufacturing rather than attempting to subsidize industries that have
shown no interest in locating domestically.
As to aluminum, we have a massive plant on the mainland near here made
possible with very low cost energy. It is heavily automated and doesn't
employ many people (less than 600). We see ships bringing bauxite
through the strait frequently.

"China Churns Out Half The World's Steel, And Other Steelmakers Feel
Pinched"
"China now produces about half of the world's steel. It singlehandedly
churns out as much steel in one year as the entire world did in 2000.
During the same time, the U.S. share of global production has fallen
from 12 percent to 5 percent today"
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/591637097/china-churns-out-half-the-worlds-steel-and-other-steelmakers-feel-pinched


"Robert Scott, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, said
foreign aluminum imports threatened the entire U.S. industry which was
hanging on “only by a thread” after a prolonged and steady decline in
aluminum prices. The threat was driven by growth of excess capacity
and overproduction in China, which had increased by nearly 1,500
percent between 2000 and 2017, he said. "
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-aluminium/china-pushes-back-as-u-s-aluminum-industry-urges-crackdown-on-imports-idUSKBN19D2EU

This is not happening by accident Google "made in china 2025"

And it's not just steel and aluminum.

"China’s Next Target: U.S. Microchip Hegemony"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-next-target-u-s-microchip-hegemony-1501168303

"China's Tsinghua to build $30 billion chip factory"
http://www.dw.com/en/chinas-tsinghua-to-build-30-billion-chip-factory/a-37205299

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,

the

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com
very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.
I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.
There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the not too distant future.

I am not in the Trump is always right camp, but are you aware that
because of the much lower cost of Chinese steel we have been slowly
closing steel plants for years, and the last ones were believed to
have about 3 years to live. There is a pretty strong argument that we
have a vital national interest in maintaing domestic steel and
aluminum industries. A soy bean farmer can grow something else, but a
shoe factory can't smelt steel.

There is a LOT more to that story. Following WWII, we didn't invest in
upgrading the steel mills while we invested in replacing the steel mills
in war ravaged Japan with modern equipment. We lost the steel mills
because it was cheaper for companies to buy steel from Japan and then
other Asian countries who made the investment. I saw the steel mills
close in Pennsylvania and good ridden! They were a blight on Pittsburgh
and no-one wanted to step up to clean up the mess that they left behind
in the rush to Japan. There was some interest for a while in boutique
mills that specialized in unique alloys. I don't know what happened to
that - I stopped following it years ago. Then, there was Alabama where
my FIL wanted me to go to work after I graduated from college. Forget
about that! Alabama was just one more step to the bottom.
We now have an economy that is much more dependent on steel that we can
purchase elsewhere. In fact, we get very little steel from China. Most
of our steel comes from Canada 16.7%, Brazil 13.2%, South Korea 9.7% and
Mexico 9.4%. Much better that we focus on high value added
manufacturing rather than attempting to subsidize industries that have
shown no interest in locating domestically.
As to aluminum, we have a massive plant on the mainland near here made
possible with very low cost energy. It is heavily automated and doesn't
employ many people (less than 600). We see ships bringing bauxite
through the strait frequently.

"China Churns Out Half The World's Steel, And Other Steelmakers Feel
Pinched"
"China now produces about half of the world's steel. It singlehandedly
churns out as much steel in one year as the entire world did in 2000.
During the same time, the U.S. share of global production has fallen
from 12 percent to 5 percent today"
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/591637097/china-churns-out-half-the-worlds-steel-and-other-steelmakers-feel-pinched
"Robert Scott, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, said
foreign aluminum imports threatened the entire U.S. industry which was
hanging on “only by a thread” after a prolonged and steady decline in
aluminum prices. The threat was driven by growth of excess capacity
and overproduction in China, which had increased by nearly 1,500
percent between 2000 and 2017, he said. "
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-aluminium/china-pushes-back-as-u-s-aluminum-industry-urges-crackdown-on-imports-idUSKBN19D2EU
This is not happening by accident Google "made in china 2025"
And it's not just steel and aluminum.
"China’s Next Target: U.S. Microchip Hegemony"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-next-target-u-s-microchip-hegemony-1501168303
"China's Tsinghua to build $30 billion chip factory"
http://www.dw.com/en/chinas-tsinghua-to-build-30-billion-chip-factory/a-37205299

You seem alarmed, but this is a sequence of economic activity that we
have seen in Japan, then Korea, India, Indonesia, and now China. With
the assistance of American companies, they enter a market at the low
value added end and use cheap labor and permissive environmental
constraints to compete against domestic companies. Consider how Japan
went up the learning curve from "cheap Japanese electronics," a comment
that I heard from a pawnbroker when I attempted to pawn my radio when I
was in college, to become the world leader in advanced electronics. I
visited Korea not long before I retired and saw the row of semiconductor
manufacturing facilities that dramatically illustrated their strategic
progress in capturing market share until they could dismiss their
American partners. China is doing exactly the same thing. Are you
surprised?

Do you really believe that tariffs will help? If so, you have changed
your tune since we last argued about tar

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,

the

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com
very

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....

If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.
I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.
There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the not too distant future.

I am not in the Trump is always right camp, but are you aware that
because of the much lower cost of Chinese steel we have been slowly
closing steel plants for years, and the last ones were believed to
have about 3 years to live. There is a pretty strong argument that we
have a vital national interest in maintaing domestic steel and
aluminum industries. A soy bean farmer can grow something else, but a
shoe factory can't smelt steel.

There is a LOT more to that story. Following WWII, we didn't invest in
upgrading the steel mills while we invested in replacing the steel mills
in war ravaged Japan with modern equipment. We lost the steel mills
because it was cheaper for companies to buy steel from Japan and then
other Asian countries who made the investment. I saw the steel mills
close in Pennsylvania and good ridden! They were a blight on Pittsburgh
and no-one wanted to step up to clean up the mess that they left behind
in the rush to Japan. There was some interest for a while in boutique
mills that specialized in unique alloys. I don't know what happened to
that - I stopped following it years ago. Then, there was Alabama where
my FIL wanted me to go to work after I graduated from college. Forget
about that! Alabama was just one more step to the bottom.
We now have an economy that is much more dependent on steel that we can
purchase elsewhere. In fact, we get very little steel from China. Most
of our steel comes from Canada 16.7%, Brazil 13.2%, South Korea 9.7% and
Mexico 9.4%. Much better that we focus on high value added
manufacturing rather than attempting to subsidize industries that have
shown no interest in locating domestically.
As to aluminum, we have a massive plant on the mainland near here made
possible with very low cost energy. It is heavily automated and doesn't
employ many people (less than 600). We see ships bringing bauxite
through the strait frequently.

"China Churns Out Half The World's Steel, And Other Steelmakers Feel
Pinched"
"China now produces about half of the world's steel. It singlehandedly
churns out as much steel in one year as the entire world did in 2000.
During the same time, the U.S. share of global production has fallen
from 12 percent to 5 percent today"
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/591637097/china-churns-out-half-the-worlds-steel-and-other-steelmakers-feel-pinched
"Robert Scott, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, said
foreign aluminum imports threatened the entire U.S. industry which was
hanging on “only by a thread” after a prolonged and steady decline in
aluminum prices. The threat was driven by growth of excess capacity
and overproduction in China, which had increased by nearly 1,500
percent between 2000 and 2017, he said. "
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-aluminium/china-pushes-back-as-u-s-aluminum-industry-urges-crackdown-on-imports-idUSKBN19D2EU
This is not happening by accident Google "made in china 2025"
And it's not just steel and aluminum.
"China’s Next Target: U.S. Microchip Hegemony"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-next-target-u-s-microchip-hegemony-1501168303
"China's Tsinghua to build $30 billion chip factory"
http://www.dw.com/en/chinas-tsinghua-to-build-30-billion-chip-factory/a-37205299

You seem alarmed, but this is a sequence of economic activity that we
have seen in Japan, then Korea, India, Indonesia, and now China. With
the assistance of American companies, they enter a market at the low
value added end and use cheap labor and permissive environmental
constraints to compete against domestic companies. Consider how Japan
went up the learning curve from "cheap Japanese electronics," a comment
that I heard from a pawnbroker when I attempted to pawn my radio when I
was in college, to become the world leader in advanced electronics. I
visited Korea not long before I retired and saw the row of semiconductor
manufacturing facilities that dramatically illustrated their strategic
progress in capturing market share until they could dismiss their
American partners. China is doing exactly the same thing. Are you
surprised?
Do you really believe that tariffs will help? If so, you have changed
your tune since we last argued about tariffs - was that only a year ago?

That professor I once mentioned, the one who offered to flunk anyone
who favored tariffs, made one exception -- national security. If it is
tariffs or the end of the US steel industry, would you prefer to see
the end of the industry? A difficult question.

BTW, I don't have a problem changing my mind. I once favored the Iraq
war. What a fool I was on that one. I support gun control, don't I?
Have you ever been convinced to take a position that was contrary to
left wing thought?

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?> >

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

So tariffs are just a sales tax. Why don't they just call it what it is instead of the fancy name tariff to confuse everybody? Don't politicians like the word tax? I guess the word tax is not good for their future job security. All they worry about is how to win the next election.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?> >

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

So tariffs are just a sales tax. Why don't they just call it what it is instead of the fancy name tariff to confuse everybody? Don't politicians like the word tax? I guess the word tax is not good for their future job security. All they worry about is how to win the next election.

Tariffs have a specific purpose that justifies a different name,
IMV. That purpose is to encourage the growth of industries in
one's own country, making or refining products for which one
would otherwise have to depend on trade with foreigners, a
situation that often becomes dicey. Self-sufficiency should
always be promoted when possible, IMV.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra
money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a
10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?> >

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!) would
mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class. (Who cares
about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple and
they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would then
have to be made in the USA, which would increase the price but
also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long as 98% of
the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS to put a stop
to that, or that's the way it will stay.

So tariffs are just a sales tax. Why don't they just call it what
it is instead of the fancy name tariff to confuse everybody? Don't
politicians like the word tax? I guess the word tax is not good for
their future job security. All they worry about is how to win the
next election.

Tariffs have a specific purpose that justifies a different name, IMV.
That purpose is to encourage the growth of industries in one's own
country, making or refining products for which one would otherwise
have to depend on trade with foreigners, a situation that often
becomes dicey. Self-sufficiency should always be promoted when
possible, IMV.

Is it a good idea to encourage the growth of one industry at the expense
of a reduction in another that depends on consumers outside the USA?

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?> >

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

So tariffs are just a sales tax. Why don't they just call it what it is instead of the fancy name tariff to confuse everybody? Don't politicians like the word tax? I guess the word tax is not good for their future job security. All they worry about is how to win the next election.

Tariffs have a specific purpose that justifies a different name,
IMV. That purpose is to encourage the growth of industries in
one's own country, making or refining products for which one
would otherwise have to depend on trade with foreigners, a
situation that often becomes dicey. Self-sufficiency should
always be promoted when possible, IMV.

The question is how to build self-sufficiency. One of my favorite books
is *The Economy of Cities* by Jane Jacobs, published in 1970. While she
describes economic development in cities, her ideas apply to nations as
well, IMV. She argues for methods of import replacement rather than
building barriers. A compelling argument. I recommend it.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?> >

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

So tariffs are just a sales tax. Why don't they just call it what it is instead of the fancy name tariff to confuse everybody? Don't politicians like the word tax? I guess the word tax is not good for their future job security. All they worry about is how to win the next election.

Tariffs have a specific purpose that justifies a different name,
IMV. That purpose is to encourage the growth of industries in
one's own country, making or refining products for which one
would otherwise have to depend on trade with foreigners, a
situation that often becomes dicey. Self-sufficiency should
always be promoted when possible, IMV.

The question is how to build self-sufficiency. One of my favorite books
is *The Economy of Cities* by Jane Jacobs, published in 1970. While she
describes economic development in cities, her ideas apply to nations as
well, IMV. She argues for methods of import replacement rather than
building barriers. A compelling argument. I recommend it.

That's one way of ending a dispute I guess. Rather
than continuing to make your own arguments. Just
suggest that people read a book that you like.

Personally, I'd rather look at what's actually been
happening to working people and their ability to have a
well-paid life, as a result of this wonderful "globalization"
across national borders and "oligarchy" within those
borders. The oligarchs, admittedly, are doing better
than ever, in Russia and in the USA.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?> >

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

So tariffs are just a sales tax. Why don't they just call it what it is instead of the fancy name tariff to confuse everybody? Don't politicians like the word tax? I guess the word tax is not good for their future job security. All they worry about is how to win the next election.

Tariffs have a specific purpose that justifies a different name,
IMV. That purpose is to encourage the growth of industries in
one's own country, making or refining products for which one
would otherwise have to depend on trade with foreigners, a
situation that often becomes dicey. Self-sufficiency should
always be promoted when possible, IMV.

The question is how to build self-sufficiency. One of my favorite books
is *The Economy of Cities* by Jane Jacobs, published in 1970. While she
describes economic development in cities, her ideas apply to nations as
well, IMV. She argues for methods of import replacement rather than
building barriers. A compelling argument. I recommend it.

That's one way of ending a dispute I guess. Rather
than continuing to make your own arguments. Just
suggest that people read a book that you like.
Personally, I'd rather look at what's actually been
happening to working people and their ability to have a
well-paid life, as a result of this wonderful "globalization"
across national borders and "oligarchy" within those
borders. The oligarchs, admittedly, are doing better
than ever, in Russia and in the USA.

The argument for building self-sufficiency is compelling and much less
confrontational than attempting to block someone else. Sorry you don't
want to read Jacobs. I think you would like what she has to say. I
mentioned her once before and Jeff thinks that she is a socialist.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by rumpelstiltskin

I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?> >

The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.

So tariffs are just a sales tax. Why don't they just call it what it is instead of the fancy name tariff to confuse everybody? Don't politicians like the word tax? I guess the word tax is not good for their future job security. All they worry about is how to win the next election.

Tariffs have a specific purpose that justifies a different name,
IMV. That purpose is to encourage the growth of industries in
one's own country, making or refining products for which one
would otherwise have to depend on trade with foreigners, a
situation that often becomes dicey. Self-sufficiency should
always be promoted when possible, IMV.

The question is how to build self-sufficiency. One of my favorite books
is *The Economy of Cities* by Jane Jacobs, published in 1970. While she
describes economic development in cities, her ideas apply to nations as
well, IMV. She argues for methods of import replacement rather than
building barriers. A compelling argument. I recommend it.

That's one way of ending a dispute I guess. Rather
than continuing to make your own arguments. Just
suggest that people read a book that you like.
Personally, I'd rather look at what's actually been
happening to working people and their ability to have a
well-paid life, as a result of this wonderful "globalization"
across national borders and "oligarchy" within those
borders. The oligarchs, admittedly, are doing better
than ever, in Russia and in the USA.

The argument for building self-sufficiency is compelling and much less
confrontational than attempting to block someone else. Sorry you don't
want to read Jacobs. I think you would like what she has to say. I
mentioned her once before and Jeff thinks that she is a socialist.

I already have way too many books to read.
If Jeff thinks she's a socialist, that is a point in
her favour though.

[mg]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.

<snip>

I think the US gets so carried away with punishing people who block
their illegal plans for regime change that they wind up killing a lot
of innocent civilians, including women and children. Here are some
articles that describe what happened in Syria:

-----------

OCTOBER 24, 2016, Beirut

US-led Sanctions Targeting Syria Risk Adjudication as War Crimes

by FRANKLIN LAMB FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

As many of us would agree, the continuing conflict in Syria has
created a devastating humanitarian crisis: the magnitude of
humanitarian needs is overwhelming in all parts of the country and
affects the region and beyond. The Syrian conflict has become the
world’s largest humanitarian crisis since World War II, the estimated
number of people in need of the protection of International
Humanitarian Law is approximately 14 million, more than two-thirds of
Syria’s pre-war population. Of these, more than 6 million are hard to
reach 16 besieged, areas, and over 7 million people are internally
displaced. António Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees,
recently described the humanitarian situation in Syria as “the great
tragedy of this century”. It continues to fuel a combustible
environment, which has contributed to the refugee and migration crisis
as well as to the rise of evermore anti-government rebels groups
including extremists affiliated with, if not directly a part of, the
so-called Islamic State (IS) and Fatah al-Sham.

At an emergency session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on
Friday, human rights chief Zeid Raad al-Hussein warned that “crimes of
historic proportions” were being committed in the east of the city and
elsewhere in Syria. . . ."
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/24/us-led-sanctions-targeting-syria-risk-adjudication-as-war-crimes/

----

"US and EU Sanctions are Punishing Ordinary Syrians and Crippling Aid
Work, UN Report Reveals

By Rania Khalek Global Research, September 29, 2016
The Intercept 28 September 2016

Internal United Nations assessments obtained by The Intercept reveal
that U.S. and European sanctions are punishing ordinary Syrians and
crippling aid work during the largest humanitarian emergency since
World War II. . . .

In a 40-page internal assessment commissioned to analyze the
humanitarian impact of the sanctions, the U.N. describes the U.S. and
EU measures as “some of the most complicated and far-reaching
sanctions regimes ever imposed.” Detailing a complex system of
“unpredictable and time-consuming” financial restrictions and
licensing requirements, the report finds that U.S. sanctions are
exceptionally harsh “regarding provision of humanitarian aid.” [. . .]

Trade restrictions on Syria are even more convoluted. Items that
contain 10 percent or more of U.S. content, including medical devices,
are banned from export to Syria. Aid groups wishing to bypass this
rule have to apply for a special license, but the licensing
bureaucracy is a nightmare to navigate, often requiring expensive
lawyers that cost far more than the items being exported. . . .

An internal U.N. email obtained by The Intercept also faults U.S. and
EU sanctions for contributing to food shortages and deteriorations in
health care. The August email from a key U.N. official warned that
sanctions had contributed to a doubling in fuel prices in 18 months
and a 40 percent drop in wheat production since 2010, causing the
price of wheat flour to soar by 300 percent and rice by 650 percent.
The email went on to cite sanctions as a “principal factor” in the
erosion of Syria’s health care system. Medicine-producing factories
that haven’t been completely destroyed by the fighting have been
forced to close because of sanctions-related restrictions on raw
materials and foreign currency, the email said.

As one NGO worker in Damascus told The Intercept, there are cars,
buses, water systems, and power stations that are in serious need of
repair all across the country, but it takes months to procure spare
parts and there’s no time to wait. So aid groups opt for cheap Chinese
options or big suppliers that have the proper licensing, but the big
suppliers can charge as much as they want. If the price is
unaffordable, systems break down and more and more people die from
dirty water, preventable diseases, and a reduced quality of life. . .
."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-and-eu-sanctions-are-punishing-ordinary-syrians-and-crippling-aid-work-un-report-reveals/5548438
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3114567/Study-on-Humanitarian-Impact-of-Syria-Related.pdf

---

". . .Others, however, smell opportunity amid the chaos. War
profiteers have carved out a thriving black market by circumventing
the sanctions regime, making millions by importing and selling
much-desired goods ranging from Kit Kat bars to Cuban cigars. By
amassing such profit and power, they’ve come to exact an immense
degree of control over the lives of Syrians living in
government-controlled areas.


The rise of the black-market kings began soon after April 2011, a
month into the Syrian uprising, when President Barack Obama imposed,
via executive order, the first of four sets of economic sanctions on
Syria. According to the Obama administration, these measures were
aimed at punishing President Bashar al-Assad’s human-rights abuses by
suffocating the Syrian economy, sundering its access to essential
goods like medications and fuel, and blocking bank transfers. They set
off a destructive ripple throughout Syria, further distorting an
economy that would soon be ravaged by the escalating conflict.

These distortions have hit everything from the energy sector to the
salaries of ordinary people. According to the World Bank, oil exports
have declined from $4.7 billion in 2011 to $0.14 billion by 2015.
Every day, dozens of cars queue up for hours outside gas stations,
where fuel prices have shot up 15-fold since 2011 due to shortages. As
Syria’s foreign reserves dwindled, its currency began to depreciate,
falling from 47 liras to the dollar before the war began in 2011 to
about 520 liras to the dollar today.

To put all this into context: In 2010, the average worker in Damascus
received a minimum of 11,000 liras a month—approximately $220. Today,
if he’s lucky, he may receive up to 26,500 liras, approximately $53.
The average monthly cost of living for a Syrian family of five,
meanwhile, is 196,000 liras, or about $380; in Damascus it is around
220,000 liras, roughly the equivalent of $425."
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/syria-war-economy-damascus-assad/502304/