pretty sure they will be the extent of it.Russia is heavily dependent on western finance. The opposite is clearly not true.
The US can definitely hurt Russia more than they can hurt us. To me, these sanctions should only be the start of our response to Russia's unprovoked aggression.
The only problem with that being that we assume our position as world reserve currency will continue indefinitely.
The only problem with that being that we assume our position as world reserve currency will continue indefinitely.
The story becomes far less dramatic when you read the history of the ship.
Built by the USSR in Leningrad, was a part of USSR/Russia's Black Sea Fleet from 1990 until 1997 (Northern Fleet before that). That's when it broke down, and Russia couldn't afford to fix it, so they gave it to Ukraine, which apparently also couldn't afford to fix it because it wasn't repaired until 14 years later, in 2011. And now it's back in Russian hands.
"Hey, Ukraine, thanks for babysitting and fixing up our sub. We'll take it back now."
It's a dick move, but whatever. It's obsolete and the only submarine of its class that's still operating (all of its brethren were scrapped or turned into museums years ago), so it's largely symbolic.
Do you think that will stop being true 10 years from now? 5 years? I don't.
Do you think is at least enough time to cripple the Russian economy and send it into a decades-long tailspin? I do.
Depends on what incentives we provide our competitors.
No, my argument is that Obama's course of action relies upon our currency domination as it's linchpin, and as such we can expect that dominance to come under concerted attack. Being as we are vulnerable to such an economic attack, which could originate from several states very close to Russia geographically, I think it foolish.
Ukraine is worth fighting for because if the Russians manage to rebuild the Soviet Union as the new Russian Empire, we no longer have the manufacturing base to stop them from taking over Europe, period. If we must fight Russia, better to do it now, while Russia is at best a rusty tiger and we still have something of a military and an industrial base, than fight Russia later when we've lost all our manufacturing base and stood down most of our military. Either way there's a chance the conflict goes nuclear, but if this war happens later we'll be the ones who must make it so. Our alternative is to accept all of Europe as eventually being part of the Russian Empire. That does not stop the war though, it just shifts it to between the Russian Empire and the Chinese Empire.Who is 'we'? Why is Ukraine worth fighting for? Are you willing to put you or your children at war with Russia to 'protect' a country that nearly 100% of Americans can't find on a map? Yeah I thought so. I love all of these patriotic armchair soldiers you find on the internet.
Putin might hesitate. For one thing, that is very expensive both in money and in trained personnel. One modern jet equals two pilots equals maybe fifty trained technicians. Putin does not have the combined output of a dozen nations to rape for his war machine. For another, there is a considerably larger differential between the quality of our pilots and the quality of Russian pilots than existed in the seventies. And don't forget, those Iranian pilots were trained in American tactics and flying American jets against Iraqis trained in Soviet tactics and flying Soviet jets. Most of those kills were by F-14 Tomcats, at the time our own front line naval fighter/interceptor and in some ways still better than the Hornets that replaced it. Not only was Iraqi socialism far short of communism, but the inevitable defeat would have been disastrous for Soviet arms sales (then a much more important part of their economy as virtually the only source of foreign currency.) As it was, the effect was significant; had the Soviet Union (then in its death throws) attempted to back Iraq, it would have had virtually no arms sales. The first Gulf war, and even the Iran-Iraq war, took place in a far different world technologically than the Korean War (in which Soviet fighters were at least as good) or the Vietnam War (in which Soviet fighters had advantages which, properly used, made them competitive and sometimes dominant.)I'd suggest you study Operation Rolling Thunder. Soviet Union under Gorbachev, refused to back Iraq in the Gulf War, like they did for North Korea or North Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder
Putin wouldn't hesitate having well trained Russian pilots put on the uniforms of Iranians or other adversaries.
I'd suggest you read up on Iranian aerial victories during the Iran-Iraq war; now imagine them being directly backed by Russia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war
I disagree. With Carter, the Soviets were able to set the terms of strategic weapons agreements to a level they could afford and to levels which granted them an advantage. With Reagan, they could not, for Reagan did not HAVE to have strategic weapons agreements. He would not accept the Soviets having an advantage unless they paid for it, and in building up our military forced the Soviets into social experiments that directly led to the fall of the Soviet Union in an attempt to make a top-down, centrally planned economy as productive as a free market capitalistic economy. The Soviets had absolutely no problem crushing every revolt, but such a repressive society simply cannot be as productive as a free society. Gorbachev tried to maintain the Soviet Union by expanding freedoms, but lifting the boot allows people to get out from under it.Those that fought for their own freedom while under the yoke of occupation for 5 decades "ended" the cold war.
Not blustering US presidents that barely had a conscious thought beyond selling weapons to our various enemies at the time.
Much of the outsourcing and decline of manufacturing has been in consumer goods. There hasn't been much loss in large machinery, defense, aerospace, etc.Ukraine is worth fighting for because if the Russians manage to rebuild the Soviet Union as the new Russian Empire, we no longer have the manufacturing base to stop them from taking over Europe, period. If we must fight Russia, better to do it now, while Russia is at best a rusty tiger and we still have something of a military and an industrial base, than fight Russia later when we've lost all our manufacturing base and stood down most of our military.
The breakup of the USSR was a series of happy accidents and miscalculations. As much as Americans like to take credit, nudging a totalitarian regime towards bankruptcy does not topple it (see North Korea). Loosening the reins too much and then refusing to order your troops to tamp down on the resulting uprising, however, does (Eastern Europe). So does the happy happenstance that a radical reformist (Yeltsin) who had the balls to resign from and then openly defy the politburo existed at a time when a relatively lenient Gorbachev was in power. And while the hard-liners did order troops into action in a coup attempt to preserve the old order, they miscalculated the willingness of their soldiers to fire on large numbers of their own civilians.I disagree. With Carter, the Soviets were able to set the terms of strategic weapons agreements to a level they could afford and to levels which granted them an advantage. With Reagan, they could not, for Reagan did not HAVE to have strategic weapons agreements. He would not accept the Soviets having an advantage unless they paid for it, and in building up our military forced the Soviets into social experiments that directly led to the fall of the Soviet Union in an attempt to make a top-down, centrally planned economy as productive as a free market capitalistic economy. The Soviets had absolutely no problem crushing every revolt, but such a repressive society simply cannot be as productive as a free society. Gorbachev tried to maintain the Soviet Union by expanding freedoms, but lifting the boot allows people to get out from under it.
I disagree. With Carter, the Soviets were able to set the terms of strategic weapons agreements to a level they could afford and to levels which granted them an advantage. With Reagan, they could not, for Reagan did not HAVE to have strategic weapons agreements. He would not accept the Soviets having an advantage unless they paid for it, and in building up our military forced the Soviets into social experiments that directly led to the fall of the Soviet Union in an attempt to make a top-down, centrally planned economy as productive as a free market capitalistic economy. The Soviets had absolutely no problem crushing every revolt, but such a repressive society simply cannot be as productive as a free society. Gorbachev tried to maintain the Soviet Union by expanding freedoms, but lifting the boot allows people to get out from under it.
You're ignoring why Gorbachev was relatively lenient. As far as manufacturing, no one factory manufactures any complex product. You need electronics, bearings (a favorite target in World War II and one still relevant today), machine tools, etc.Much of the outsourcing and decline of manufacturing has been in consumer goods. There hasn't been much loss in large machinery, defense, aerospace, etc.
Nor am I convinced that the old paradigm of march-in-your-army-and-conquer-the-country really works in the modern world, if people are properly motivated. The US and USSR both learned that lesson the hard way in Afghanistan.
The breakup of the USSR was a series of happy accidents and miscalculations. As much as Americans like to take credit, nudging a totalitarian regime towards bankruptcy does not topple it (see North Korea). Loosening the reins too much and then refusing to order your troops to tamp down on the resulting uprising, however, does (Eastern Europe). So does the happy happenstance that a radical reformist (Yeltsin) who had the balls to resign from and then openly defy the politburo existed at a time when a relatively lenient Gorbachev was in power. And while the hard-liners did order troops into action in a coup attempt to preserve the old order, they miscalculated the willingness of their soldiers to fire on large numbers of their own civilians.
To give Reagan credit for the USSR's downfall is just ignorant American cheerleading--it happened largely from within. Hell, even bin Laden probably deserved more credit, given how much blood and treasure the USSR lost in that hell hole.
It's amazing how quickly the left switched from "we must appease the Soviets, for we cannot compete with their top-down centrally managed society" to "this was bound to happen and certainly had nothing to do with Reagan" once the Soviet Union actually fell.as far as the Cold War goes, Reagan was an imbecilic wise and beautiful woman with barely the memory to put his pants on by that time in his life. His boys wrote some speeches for him to say behind some safe zones, but anything that happened was happening long before he coked his way into office.
Besides, he was too busy committing massive acts of treason to lead this world into any meaningful progress. Oh wait, no--he "didn't recall" any of what was happening at that time. Yes, that is what he claimed--The Great Buffoon of the 20th century.
Those that actually wanted freedom were the ones that fought for it.
No more revisionism for Reagan, please.
You're ignoring why Gorbachev was relatively lenient.
No, my argument is that Obama's course of action relies upon our currency domination as it's linchpin, and as such we can expect that dominance to come under concerted attack. Being as we are vulnerable to such an economic attack, which could originate from several states very close to Russia geographically, I think it foolish.
LOL Ah, now we've entered the humor portion of the thread.Because he wasn't drunk on power and cared more for the well-being of his country than for the continued absolute rule of the establishment?
Not quite that easy. Missiles require training and logistical distribution and support. Logistical equipment (I'm assuming by this you mean trucks, fuel, bullets) must be integrated into the existing system. Complicating this, Putin has a sizable force at Ukraine's border (much of which is probably inside Crimea by now) and is rapidly building up. If we (US and Europe) begin providing military support to Ukraine, Putin may well seize that as reason to invade and annex the entire nation. While we don't want Putin to form another Russian empire, we don't want to cause a war either, at least until we've determined that war is not avoidable.why have we not given massive military aid to ukraine yet?
we should be shipping them small arms man portable missiles and logistics equipment by the ton
It's amazing how quickly the left switched from "we must appease the Soviets, for we cannot compete with their top-down centrally managed society" to "this was bound to happen and certainly had nothing to do with Reagan" once the Soviet Union actually fell.
LOL Ah, now we've entered the humor portion of the thread.
Not quite that easy. Missiles require training and logistical distribution and support. Logistical equipment (I'm assuming by this you mean trucks, fuel, bullets) must be integrated into the existing system. Complicating this, Putin has a sizable force at Ukraine's border (much of which is probably inside Crimea by now) and is rapidly building up. If we (US and Europe) begin providing military support to Ukraine, Putin may well seize that as reason to invade and annex the entire nation. While we don't want Putin to form another Russian empire, we don't want to cause a war either, at least until we've determined that war is not avoidable.
War is chess where people die. Have to look several moves ahead, and our knee jerk reactions are probably wrong and possibly dangerous. Obama is (with Merkel, etc.) walking a tightrope here and while he looks weak and indecisive, in fact he's probably doing just fine. This is not a simple situation with one right and one wrong path, or even a situation where we are free to act with impunity on our perceived right path without fear of immediate consequences. The EU and NATO must be at least equal partners here since although the US must provide most of the muscle, they will suffer most of the consequences, so part of Obama looking weak is simply good sense in not playing Rambo and thereby starting World War 2.5.
Yeah, no shit. Though kicking Russia out of the G8 was a big freakin' pawn.I hope you are right.
why have we not given massive military aid to ukraine yet?
we should be shipping them small arms man portable missiles and logistics equipment by the ton