HawkShack.com

https://eand.co/is-this-world-war-iii-eed6d0e2dec1

According to this article, we are a little over a third of the way into the next world war (hint: it didn’t start with Ukraine). No matter which side of the aisle you’re on, it’s worrisome. And it explains what Putin is trying to do. Hopefully he fails, but it’s chilling nonetheless. I just ask that you read the article first before responding. Thanks.

Articles like this exact article were written as far back as the 60s or earlier when Russia was destabilizing the West by radicalizing minorities and creating class warfare between the wealthy and the poor. They had infiltrated campuses and the media to push Communism along with racial and class division to destabilize the West. Then it was the Far left involved in this destabilization.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/communist-propaganda-has-infiltrated-more-than-100-us-colleges-posing-as-chinese-language-institute

Your article is a leftist take on the same idea.

All this crap does is further divide the nation as both sides look to blame the other for the problems they can't seem to find reasonable compromises to. As far as outside people destabilizing us, what exactly makes you think Russia or China are more stable than America, Canada, or other Western nations.

First, tell why you believe anywhere in the world other than maybe a few very small nations are in anyway stable and united? We're literally in the middle of a world wide culture war everywhere in every country. The Middle East has a culture war going on inside Islam and with their governments not wanting dictators and monarchs any longer. Russia has internal strife because they want to modernize and no longer have guys in power 22 years. Chinese people aren't particularly happy with Communism, while at the same time wanting to support a new Chinese identity separate from Americanizing.

Russia and China lack the power to do what this article claims. Which is why right now you are basically watching America turn off the Russian economy destabilizing them far worse than Russia could ever destabilize America.

I5, I really wish would sit down, process the world using your brain, not sensationalistic articles, and see the world as it is, not as someone else thinks it is. Look at the culture wars in America or Canada, wherever you're living, right some of them down in a journal, and write what you think of them and how they should be decided or what would be a good compromise. These things need to be discussed and settled with good leadership exploring the issues and plotting a good path forward with the culture changes desired.

As far as other nations around the world, we do more to destabilize them than they do to us. We have some major issues of contention, but we'll likely get them settled because have the power to try again every 4 to 8 years give or take some years with Congress.

Think more about the world, how it actually works, and the groups competing in it. You focus too much on one extreme or the other, you get a real false view of the world.

Haha asf, I know I can always count on your reactions. Mind you, everything you’re saying is also your perception, as opposed to objective reality. I’m surprised though that you point to crushing sanctions as an effective tool, since it sounded like you weren’t a big believed in them in another thread.

I-5 wrote:https://eand.co/is-this-world-war-iii-eed6d0e2dec1

According to this article, we are a little over a third of the way into the next world war (hint: it didn’t start with Ukraine). No matter which side of the aisle you’re on, it’s worrisome. And it explains what Putin is trying to do. Hopefully he fails, but it’s chilling nonetheless. I just ask that you read the article first before responding. Thanks.

Total garbage. The article fails to address how the left has escaped responsibility even though a Democrat has controlled the White House for 9 out of the past 13 years, including when Putin has made his biggest move, to invade Ukraine, and it assigns way too much importance to Russian interference in the 2016 election. It sounds like Hillary making excuses as to why she lost.

In case you haven't noticed, the right has been just as outraged, if not more outraged, at the Russian invasion of Ukraine as the left has. If anything, it's united the country to a common cause, a fact completely overlooked by the author of the article.

RiverDog wrote:In case you haven't noticed, the right has been just as outraged, if not more outraged, at the Russian invasion of Ukraine as the left has. If anything, it's united the country to a common cause, a fact completely overlooked by the author of the article.

I have absolutely noticed that conservatives are equally outraged by what’s going on. This is why I said that its scary no matter which side if the aisle you’re on. Romney was absolutely correct and Obama was dead wrong about Russia being our greatest enemy. Ive said this a few times before, but if Romney were the president, I would trust him in watching for the best interest of the country.

However, the EXTREME right is different, and has absolutely been using Putin’s talking points as if read from a script. Example: Tucker at the very beginning of the invasion was rhetorically asking his viewers ‘what has Putin personally done to you that you should be against him?’, then just a few days ago he started spreading a russian disinformation piece about US backed biolabs in Ukraine producing bio weapons (there is zero evidence to back up those claims or they would have presented it). What’s funny is that I heard about this biolab claim more than a week ago, when a Ukrainian friend of mine sent me an article making the same claim - she had gotten it from a russian news source and thought it might be true until she started fact checking it. So when Tucker suddenly started touting the biolab lie, I noted he was just a few days delayed from when I heard about it.But it was the exact same bogus claim my Ukrainian friend had sent me much earlier - the only difference was in Russia, this claim was produced as one of the reasons Putin gave as justification for his military operation (its not called a war or invasion in Russia), to save Ukraine and the world by stopping these illegal US biolabs - and that he had already destroyed them. The only thing I’m not sure of is whether Tucker is intentionally trying to help Russian disinformation. I cant think of why he would do this otherwise.

RiverDog wrote:In case you haven't noticed, the right has been just as outraged, if not more outraged, at the Russian invasion of Ukraine as the left has. If anything, it's united the country to a common cause, a fact completely overlooked by the author of the article.

I-5 wrote:However, the EXTREME right is different, and has absolutely been using Putin’s talking points as if read from a script. Example: Tucker at the very beginning of the invasion was rhetorically asking his viewers ‘what has Putin personally done to you that you should be against him?’, then just a few days ago he started spreading a russian disinformation piece about US backed biolabs in Ukraine producing bio weapons (there is zero evidence to back up those claims or they would have presented it). What’s funny is that I heard about this biolab claim more than a week ago, when a Ukrainian friend of mine sent me an article making the same claim - she had gotten it from a russian news source and thought it might be true until she started fact checking it. So when Tucker suddenly started touting the biolab lie, I noted he was just a few days delayed from when I heard about it.But it was the exact same bogus claim my Ukrainian friend had sent me much earlier - the only difference was in Russia, this claim was produced as one of the reasons Putin gave as justification for his military operation (its not called a war or invasion in Russia), to save Ukraine and the world by stopping these illegal US biolabs - and that he had already destroyed them.

The extreme right doesn't account for the entire lot. Just 26% of Americans subscribe to Tucker Carlson's view that the Russia/Ukraine conflict is none of our business. There's been a huge swing in the past couple of weeks, one that I've detected on social media amongst friends of mine that are feverish Trump supporters.

Likewise, a plurality of Republicans now say “it’s in America’s best interests to stop Russia and help Ukraine” (44 percent), while fewer insist “the conflict is none of America’s business” (30 percent). Three weeks ago, Republicans were more likely to say the latter (41 percent) than the former (39 percent).

As a result, just a quarter of Americans (26 percent) now say the U.S. has no stake in the conflict — an argument that top Fox News opinion host Tucker Carlson was pushing until late last week.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi ... s-n1291736

And then there's this:

n a matter of weeks, the center of gravity on Ukraine has sharply shifted among Republicans, muffling doubts about U.S. involvement and dismissing questions about the recent past.

Now such voices are fading, as the bulk of the Republican Party tries to get on the right side of history amid a brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine. Republicans are among the most vociferous champions for the United States to amp up its military response, and are competing to issue the strongest expressions of solidarity with Ukraine’s leaders.

The Republican center of gravity has undergone what Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and a longtime advocate for the Ukrainian community in his state, called a “sea change,” a swing of the pendulum so sharp that some fear it could lead Congress to unwittingly widen the war.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/us/p ... raine.html

The Russian's disinformation campaign has its limits. I'd be more frightened that conservatives are now in an extremely hawkish mood, that they will push Biden to intervene militarily. This is not going the way Putin wanted it. IMO they expected the issue to divide Americans, that roughly half would adapt Trump/Carlson's view that the Ukraine is none of our business when the exact opposite has happened.

RiverDog wrote:The extreme right doesn't account for the entire lot. Just 26% of Americans subscribe to Tucker Carlson's view that the Russia/Ukraine conflict is none of our business. There's been a huge swing in the past couple of weeks, one that I've detected on social media amongst friends of mine that are feverish Trump supporters.

Likewise, a plurality of Republicans now say “it’s in America’s best interests to stop Russia and help Ukraine” (44 percent), while fewer insist “the conflict is none of America’s business” (30 percent). Three weeks ago, Republicans were more likely to say the latter (41 percent) than the former (39 percent). As a result, just a quarter of Americans (26 percent) now say the U.S. has no stake in the conflict — an argument that top Fox News opinion host Tucker Carlson was pushing until late last week.

And nowhere did I even remotely claim or imply the extreme right accounts for the entire lot. That's not the point at all. The point is this: the extreme right is reading cue cards from Putin. When did that start happening and why?

I'm glad to hear though that you've detected a a big swing amongst your friends who are Trump supporters. That's good.

RiverDog wrote:This is not going the way Putin wanted it. IMO they expected the issue to divide Americans, that roughly half would adapt Trump/Carlson's view that the Ukraine is none of our business when the exact opposite has happened.

I totally agree with this. Putin intended to weaken NATO, but ironically he has only strengthened it, quite unintentionally, however most of the credit for this has to go to the Ukrainians and their president Zelensky for absolutely standing their ground. Who would have guessed a couple weeks ago that Ukrainians themselves would take the spotlight and galvanize global support like they have? No one. Putin badly miscalculated on that. The point remains though that he has approximately 26% (give or take) of Americans STILL regurgitating his lies, which is a shockingly large number if you compare it to the cold war years, and he probably calculated that would be enough division to use as cover to invade Ukraine.

I still remember when Trump was trying to lobby the G7 to let Russia back in. Why would would a POTUS push for such a thing on his own?

RiverDog wrote:The extreme right doesn't account for the entire lot. Just 26% of Americans subscribe to Tucker Carlson's view that the Russia/Ukraine conflict is none of our business. There's been a huge swing in the past couple of weeks, one that I've detected on social media amongst friends of mine that are feverish Trump supporters.

Likewise, a plurality of Republicans now say “it’s in America’s best interests to stop Russia and help Ukraine” (44 percent), while fewer insist “the conflict is none of America’s business” (30 percent). Three weeks ago, Republicans were more likely to say the latter (41 percent) than the former (39 percent). As a result, just a quarter of Americans (26 percent) now say the U.S. has no stake in the conflict — an argument that top Fox News opinion host Tucker Carlson was pushing until late last week.

I-5 wrote:And nowhere did I even remotely claim or imply the extreme right accounts for the entire lot. That's not the point at all. The point is this: the extreme right is reading cue cards from Putin. When did that start happening and why?

I assumed from this statement..."However, the EXTREME right is different, and has absolutely been using Putin’s talking points as if read from a script. Example: Tucker at the very beginning of the invasion was rhetorically asking his viewers ‘what has Putin personally done to you that you should be against him?" that you felt that the viewpoints represented by the extreme right is a significant factor in how conservatives in general view the issue, otherwise, why the mention? As far as taking their talking points from Putin, that's not how I see the far right. They are taking their talking points from Trump, in decreasing numbers.

I-5 wrote:I'm glad to hear though that you've detected a big swing amongst your friends who are Trump supporters. That's good.

It's not necessarily a swing away from Trump, although it could manifest itself like that this November, but rather they are outraged by the Russians over their invasion of Ukraine. They are not agreeing with Trump/Carlson's POV on this particular subject. They do, however, blame Biden and liberals for the predicament that we find ourselves in, and to a certain degree, I agree with them.

RiverDog wrote:This is not going the way Putin wanted it. IMO they expected the issue to divide Americans, that roughly half would adapt Trump/Carlson's view that the Ukraine is none of our business when the exact opposite has happened.

I-5 wrote:I totally agree with this. Putin intended to weaken NATO, but ironically he has only strengthened it, quite unintentionally, however most of the credit for this has to go to the Ukrainians and their president Zelensky for absolutely standing their ground. Who would have guessed a couple weeks ago that Ukrainians themselves would take the spotlight and galvanize global support like they have? No one. Putin badly miscalculated on that. The point remains though that he has approximately 26% (give or take) of Americans STILL regurgitating his lies, which is a shockingly large number if you compare it to the cold war years, and he probably calculated that would be enough division to use as cover to invade Ukraine.

I still remember when Trump was trying to lobby the G7 to let Russia back in. Why would would a POTUS push for such a thing on his own?

I agree about giving most of the credit to Zelensky, particularly when it comes to conservatives. Most conservatives are 2nd Amendment folks, very strong on defense, and being that they tend to be older, grew up in a time during the Cold War when Russia was the "Evil Empire", our arch enemy since the end of WW2, so they were a ready made villain for them. When Zelensky came out and said "I don't need a ride, I need ammunition", it was like a dog whistle to conservatives, like Clint Eastwood saying "Go ahead: Make my day!" In the eyes of a conservative, Zelensky is the modern day John Wayne defending the Alamo.

Whether or not that explains other nations in the west uniting behind Ukraine like they have, I couldn't say.

As far as Trump's obvious infatuation with Putin and the Russians, I have no idea where it gets its roots. But knowing Trump, it must have something to do with money or business interests if his.

RiverDog wrote:I assumed from this statement..."However, the EXTREME right is different, and has absolutely been using Putin’s talking points as if read from a script. Example: Tucker at the very beginning of the invasion was rhetorically asking his viewers ‘what has Putin personally done to you that you should be against him?" that you felt that the viewpoints represented by the extreme right is a significant factor in how conservatives in general view the issue, otherwise, why the mention? As far as taking their talking points from Putin, that's not how I see the far right. They are taking their talking points from Trump, in decreasing numbers.

No, don't assume that I think the extreme right speaks for all conservatives. I don't think they do at all. I mention it because the extreme right is absolutely a not insignificant factor in american public opinion, and they have strong mouthpieces among SOME (not all) parts of a mainstream channel like Fox News. That's a triumph for Putin, and absolutely worth calling out.

RiverDog wrote:It's not necessarily a swing away from Trump, although it could manifest itself like that this November, but rather they are outraged by the Russians over their invasion of Ukraine. They are not agreeing with Trump/Carlson's POV on this particular subject. They do, however, blame Biden and liberals for the predicament that we find ourselves in, and to a certain degree, I agree with them.

My 'oh good' comment had nothing to do with your friends swinging away from Trump...I was talking about their shift about Ukraine only, not Trump. Sorry if it seemed I was talking about Trump - I was not at all.

RiverDog wrote:I agree about giving most of the credit to Zelensky, particularly when it comes to conservatives. Most conservatives are 2nd Amendment folks, very strong on defense, and being that they tend to be older, grew up in a time during the Cold War when Russia was our arch enemy, the "Evil Empire", so no one needs to create a villian for them. When Zelensky came out and said "I don't need a ride, I need ammunition", it was like a dog whistle to conservatives, like Clint Eastwood saying "Go ahead: Make my day!" In the eyes of a conservative, Zelensky is the modern day John Wayne defending the Alamo.

As far as Trump's obvious infatuation for the Russians, I have no idea where it gets its roots. But knowing Trump, it must have something to do with money or business interests if his.

Yes, I agree that the reason for conservatives backing Ukrainians are because it does align with their values on 2nd amendment, strong defense etc. As for the evil empire, I think both side of the aisle have always been wary of Russia...at least speaking for myself, I always have. But I think Obama may have misjudged the threat as I previously mentioned. Kudos to Romney. As for having no idea about Trump's infatuation, it's with Putin specifically, and of course it has to do with his interests, which defines him as an asset.

I-5 wrote:Yes, I agree that the reason for conservatives backing Ukrainians are because it does align with their values on 2nd amendment, strong defense etc. As for the evil empire, I think both side of the aisle have always been wary of Russia...at least speaking for myself, I always have. But I think Obama may have misjudged the threat as I previously mentioned. Kudos to Romney. As for having no idea about Trump's infatuation, it's with Putin specifically, and of course it has to do with his interests, which defines him as an asset.

Up until the past few weeks, I think that most conservatives viewed China as the larger threat, and with good reason. My take is that they felt that once the Soviet Union fell, that they were no longer in the same league as the US and China. It's been a rather remarkable conversion to see as many conservatives come out against Russia like they have.

But as I said, there's a very strong dislike amongst conservatives with Biden over his handling of the crisis and with liberals in general for the high gas prices and inflation that has at least in part been a result of the invasion. I don't think you'll see the country rallying around the POTUS as usually is the case in a crisis like this. Biden's job approval rating remains in the toilet, hovering where it has been for the last 4 months.

RiverDog wrote:Up until the past few weeks, I think that most conservatives viewed China as the larger threat, and with good reason. My take is that they felt that once the Soviet Union fell, that they were no longer in the same league as the US and China. It's been a rather remarkable conversion to see as many conservatives come out against Russia like they have.

I think China is still a threat, and probably a bigger factor once Putin is no longer (who knows when that will be). China is playing more of a long game in fighting an economic war; I don't believe China has much if any appetite in using their military (though Putin is asking for military aid now, we'll see how China responds). To me, your conservative friends who have come out against Russia are patriots, as are liberals who are staunchly anti-Russia.

RiverDog wrote:But as I said, there's a very strong dislike amongst conservatives with Biden over his handling of the crisis and with liberals in general for the high gas prices and inflation that has at least in part been a result of the invasion. I don't think you'll see the country rallying around the POTUS as usually is the case in a crisis like this. Biden's job approval rating remains in the toilet, hovering where it has been for the last 4 months.

Do you mean handling of the Ukraine invasion? What would they have him do besides sanctions? Go into Ukraine? I myself am on the fence about it, as much as I want US and NATO to go in...we're all aware that Putin could lose it. Or he could be bluffing. No one knows.

I-5 wrote:Do you mean handling of the Ukraine invasion? What would they have him do besides sanctions? Go into Ukraine? I myself am on the fence about it, as much as I want US and NATO to go in...we're all aware that Putin could lose it. Or he could be bluffing. No one knows.

I'm sure it varies, but many conservatives believe that the sanctions were too little, too late, that had he employed them earlier as Russia was massing their forces, that it might have made a difference. They also feel that we should be doing more to help the Ukrainians, like establishing a no fly zone. I don't necessarily agree with those concepts, especially the latter one as I do feel it could lead to an escalation.

They blame Biden and the Dems for our being too dependent on foreign oil by opposing such measures as domestic oil production and the construction of the Keystone pipeline and a general unfriendliness to oil companies, putting the green power wagon in front of the gas and oil horses. And whether it's fair or not, they blame him for inflation and high gas prices.

Bottom line is that the country is still very divided, that although there's a strong consensus about the guilt of Putin and the Russians, that it hasn't exactly united the country behind its leader. The F-Biden flags haven't disappeared.

RiverDog wrote:I'm sure it varies, but many conservatives believe that the sanctions were too little, too late, that had he employed them earlier as Russia was massing their forces, that it might have made a difference. They also feel that we should be doing more to help the Ukrainians, like establishing a no fly zone. I don't necessarily agree with those concepts, especially the latter one as I do feel it could lead to an escalation.

They do blame Biden and the Dems for our being too dependent on foreign oil by opposing such measures as domestic oil production and the construction of the Keystone pipeline and a general unfriendliness to oil companies, putting the green power wagon in front of the gas and oil horses.

Bottom line is that the country is still very divided, that although there's a strong consensus about the guilt of Putin and the Russians, that it hasn't exactly united the country behind its leader. The F-Biden flags haven't disappeared.

I think those arguments are pretty weak, because I don't recall any americans complaining about sanctions being too weak before Russia invaded - although I do remember Zelensky asking what are you waiting for? He was right. Do you recall who else was saying sanctions should be stronger before the invastion occurred?

I don't understand why Biden would be opposing more domestic oil production, so I would criticize him for that as well.

As far as division goes, I do give him credit for trying to reach out to all americans and not pushing the us-them language that other presidents have used in the past. I don't think Biden is the reason for the division, but I'm open to hearing details if you think he is. But yes, the country is still divided, and Putin is still benefitting from that.

RiverDog wrote:I'm sure it varies, but many conservatives believe that the sanctions were too little, too late, that had he employed them earlier as Russia was massing their forces, that it might have made a difference. They also feel that we should be doing more to help the Ukrainians, like establishing a no fly zone. I don't necessarily agree with those concepts, especially the latter one as I do feel it could lead to an escalation.

They do blame Biden and the Dems for our being too dependent on foreign oil by opposing such measures as domestic oil production and the construction of the Keystone pipeline and a general unfriendliness to oil companies, putting the green power wagon in front of the gas and oil horses.

Bottom line is that the country is still very divided, that although there's a strong consensus about the guilt of Putin and the Russians, that it hasn't exactly united the country behind its leader. The F-Biden flags haven't disappeared.

I-5 wrote:I think those arguments are pretty weak, because I don't recall any americans complaining about sanctions being too weak before Russia invaded - although I do remember Zelensky asking what are you waiting for? He was right. Do you recall who else was saying sanctions should be stronger before the invastion occurred?

I agree, hindsight is 20/20. But that's not how a lot of conservatives see it.

I-5 wrote:I don't understand why Biden would be opposing more domestic oil production, so I would criticize him for that as well.

One of the first acts that Biden did when he took office was to issue an executive order halting the construction of the Keystone pipeline:

Within hours of taking his oath of office, Joe Biden, the 46th president of the United States, had signed over a dozen executive orders, among
them one canceling the permit for the Keystone XL oil and gas pipeline.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00 ... -SD016.pdf

Additionally, the Democrats, in general, have adapted an energy policy that focuses exclusively on specific types of renewables. Out here in eastern Washington, the Democratic governor is hell bent to install 250 wind turbines taller than the Space Needle and with a footprint nearly the area of the city of Seattle while simultaneously endorsing the proposal to breach the lower Snake River dams that emit zero greenhouse gasses that we are told is the reasoning for the wind turbines. Biden himself may not endorse that kind of lunacy, but the fact that he has a capital 'D' hung around his neck means that they associate him with that agenda.

I-5 wrote:As far as division goes, I do give him credit for trying to reach out to all americans and not pushing the us-them language that other presidents have used in the past. I don't think Biden is the reason for the division, but I'm open to hearing details if you think he is. But yes, the country is still divided, and Putin is still benefitting from that.

I feel badly for Biden because much of the angst he's receiving is undeserved. He's a lot like Jimmy Carter IMO, a victim of circumstances beyond his control and being painted with the same brush stroke as all Democrats are. But Biden is trying to have his cake and eat it, too, pleasing the left wing of his party while trying to reach out to Republicans. Unfortunately, the country is so divided that the 2nd coming of Christ couldn't make us come together. The gulf isn't going to be narrowed for quite some time. Reasonable people like the two of us are not the norm.

RiverDog wrote:I feel badly for Biden because much of the angst he's receiving is undeserved. He's a lot like Jimmy Carter IMO, a victim of circumstances beyond his control and being painted with the same brush stroke as all Democrats are. But Biden is trying to have his cake and eat it, too, pleasing the left wing of his party while trying to reach out to Republicans. Unfortunately, the country is so divided that the 2nd coming of Christ couldn't make us come together. The gulf isn't going to be narrowed for quite some time. Reasonable people like the two of us are not the norm.

This division we're talking about is the first part of the article I posted at the top. You may or may not agree, but the premise is that division was the vehicle to introducing instability that Russia wanted to see happen in the US. And it worked, and still continues to work. Otherwise, I do think Americans have more in common that not. Ukraine and Zelensky's bravery has temporarily restored a lot of our common beliefs, which seems to be a huge miscalculation by Putin.

Edit: you didn't comment on it, but Tucker and Tulsi are prime examples of russian assets, spewing the exact same garbage that Russia is using on its own citizens to justify attacking Ukraine. Why would would they spread these lies like the false biolab story?

The article may be bogus, but the question it asks might be valid.
Any time a country attacks another, things have a chance to go awry.
In this case Putin may have unwittingly backed himself into a corner and may get desperate
enough to do something stupid like chemical or biological weapons as they did in Syria.
As well, if a cruise missile goes rogue and hits a NATO country, would NATO respond?
I read about some Russian military people who said it is the start of a global conflict.
Take it as you may, but it’s a dangerous time.

I wonder if they believe it all and if they really care. You ever watch the animated series The Boondocks? There’s an episode where a teacher responded what’s my n-word to one of the main characters in the same way he said it to the teacher. They then proceeded to sue the school and a Al sharpton type character came to their defense. After a couple of public interviews where he promoted his book he started locking horns with Anne Coulter on tv several times. At the end of the episode, Anne enters the green room and is being chummy with the Al sharpton character. He needed a nemesis to rally his $ base and she needed to be that nemesis to rally her $ base. The animosity between them was all for show.

The point it is, it wouldn’t surprise me in least if Tucker and Tulsi don’t give a rip about the issues and could very well not believe any of it but sell it anyway because that’s how they earn. Division sells because there’s enough people that believe it. Despicable, for sure, but it keeps the fringe right you speak of tuning in and buying their stuff. That may be over simplifying to, and I hope it is no more sinister than that, but it’s why I don’t buy what they are selling.

As far as Ukraine goes, yeah, Putin miscalculated. He thought he could just kick down the door and everyone would either give up the fight or welcome him as a liberator. Turn out Ukrainians are proud of being Ukrainians and aren’t willing to be under the thumb of a dictator. And they are willing to fight for it. It’s been discussed in this thread already; Putin now needs to either win this thing, be given an out, or retreat and lose face. I’m hoping for the middle option. The first I don’t want at all and the 3rd I don’t see happening.

And if Putin does go for full conquest, he’d likely have another Afghanistan on his hands. The west will support Ukrainian guerrillas and the major difference would be a largely united citizen would be fighting instead of a fractured tribal populace a La the Mujahideen. Putin needs Ukraine to fold without occupation or he’ll get a decade of guerrilla war.

I-5 wrote:Haha asf, I know I can always count on your reactions. Mind you, everything you’re saying is also your perception, as opposed to objective reality. I’m surprised though that you point to crushing sanctions as an effective tool, since it sounded like you weren’t a big believed in them in another thread.

The sanctions are going to crush Russia badly, but won't have much of an effect on Putin. The point it illustrates is that the United States has much more power to negatively impact Russia than they have to negatively impact us. But what it will do in Russia likely just isolate them more, create an angry generation Putin and his clowns can blame on America for trying to destroy them economically, yet doesn't actually remove Putin from power because it doesn't cut off his ability to focus Russian resources on strengthening and empowering the military. One of the methods of tyranny is to create a military class with special privileges that can be used to oppress the population. It is much easier to do when Russia is cut off from the rest of the world and the Russian propaganda machine can start in full effect blaming America and recruiting for more militaristic operations. Which may be Putin's plan. By doing this and causing the West to sanction him, he creates an isolated Russia that he can further manipulate. While the West thinking the sanctions strangling him is going to remove him from power find they have merely created another situation for an isolated power to build up militarily to start expanding with the idea of the world as their enemy, much as occurred in Nazi Germany when crushing sanctions and war debt ruined their economy. It will really depend on who takes over after Putin dies. If someone equal to or worse than Putin takes over, it could get very bad. If someone more like Gorbachev takes over, then we might roll through ok. It depends on what direction the Russian people decide to go in.

Back to the topic, the idea that one side of the political spectrum was influenced by foreign powers is not a new concept. The entire Red Scare and Communist Witch Hunt of the 40s and 50s was done under the idea that a foreign power aka The Soviet Union was have a powerful influential effect on American politics and trying to undermine and destroy the United States from afar. This was when the Soviet Union was expanding.

There is a long tradition and history of blaming the opposing political philosophy of somehow being influenced by a foreign power to further attack and divide the two competing sides. If you can label the opponent a traitor or get sufficient political will to attack your opponent as having been influenced by foreign political powers, then you have a powerful tool of influence in your arsenal that you can use to take power. You watched Hilary Clinton do this against Donald Trump and he hasn't been able to shake it with Democratic supporters, though it doesn't appear Biden is interested in pursuing Hilary's stupid move any further.

If you delve into this idea, it has been true for both political sides for time immemorial. Even dating back to the Revolutionary War when the British were offering rewards to enslaved Africans and Native Tribes to side with them against the American revolutionaries who were doing the same. Foreign interference in America is a long standing occurrence. In fact painting some foreign power as the boogie man is a long-standing tradition in nearly every country to encourage jingoistic nationalism (or whatever group is in power like Islamic nationalists in the Middle East) and attack your opponents.

Your article is the leftist version of an attack on the right wing mentality where you find some common theme and use it to paint some idea that you want to promote. I can't buy into these ideas because I have immediate recall of the numerous times this particular argument has been used by both the right and left to paint the other side as influenced by foreign powers. For someone like me that is a non-starter as I am well aware foreign powers interfere in our affairs on a constant basis because we invite them to. America makes deals with people around the world all the time. They have a vested interest in our politics because their politics are tied to our politics. This is obvious if you read on American international policy and see who we support with money and weapons to keep their enemies from taking power.

It's a big non-starter for me. Information warfare did not crop up in the age of computers and the Internet. It's merely moved to the different mediums that now exist. It takes existing rifts in society and tries to inflame them, it does not create the rifts to start with. Americans can defeat a lot of this nonsense by simply being more aware of what they are discussing by doing as I advised you and researching an issue, writing down what you think on this issue, and having a clearly developed idea of a good way to ameliorate the issue, and then supporting leadership that aligns with what you think is a good path forward.

The complex events that might start World War 3 are vast and varied. Russia is one of the few nations in the world that can start a World War 3. That is why watching what's going on there is important because they are a different type of nation than some small place with insufficient people and technology to start a World War. So far the international community is reacting in a way that should prevent World War 3, but who knows. Isolation Russia might sow the seeds for them to build a "We take over the world or the world keeps screwing us" mentality that might cause World War 3 in the future. It certainly doesn't look like the Russian people want this, so maybe it will be Russia's last kick before their warlord strongman politics dies. We shall see.

And one last note, if Americans are so dumb as to fight a Civil War based on foreign manipulation from social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, or their news channels, then I guess we deserve to fall. Personally, I'm l already seeing my buddies relax more as the world opens up again. They can travel again. They can live again. They can go out with their families. They're not stuck in their house watching the 24 hours news cycle to drive them crazy. As life gets more back to normal, I expect less and less of the crazy to occur. I think the majority of that was driven by what they call Cabin Fever. You stay stuck in your place too long watching the same crap around the clock, no job, not sure when life will return to normal while wearing masks, you start to lose your mind.

I just found out my gym is back to being open 24 hours. I'm about to sign up again. Get back to lifting weights. I haven't been able to do that for almost 2 years. I missed it so much and I gained so much damn weight. I was 50 lbs. lighter and probably twice as strong before the world shutdown and I had to work tons of overtime and wear masks all the time. Life returning to more normal has been the biggest stress reliever.

Too bad dumbass evil Putin had to start some crap just as things were getting to normal. I feel bad for the Ukrainians and Russians who probably wanted to get back to some normal life. Now they have to deal with war and a complete shunning from the world because their jackass leader decided after millions dying from a pandemic now was a good time to start a war and have Russia flex. You really have to be a vile person to do something like this.

RiverDog wrote:I feel badly for Biden because much of the angst he's receiving is undeserved. He's a lot like Jimmy Carter IMO, a victim of circumstances beyond his control and being painted with the same brush stroke as all Democrats are. But Biden is trying to have his cake and eat it, too, pleasing the left wing of his party while trying to reach out to Republicans. Unfortunately, the country is so divided that the 2nd coming of Christ couldn't make us come together. The gulf isn't going to be narrowed for quite some time. Reasonable people like the two of us are not the norm.

I-5 wrote:This division we're talking about is the first part of the article I posted at the top. You may or may not agree, but the premise is that division was the vehicle to introducing instability that Russia wanted to see happen in the US. And it worked, and still continues to work. Otherwise, I do think Americans have more in common that not. Ukraine and Zelensky's bravery has temporarily restored a lot of our common beliefs, which seems to be a huge miscalculation by Putin.

Edit: you didn't comment on it, but Tucker and Tulsi are prime examples of russian assets, spewing the exact same garbage that Russia is using on its own citizens to justify attacking Ukraine. Why would would they spread these lies like the false biolab story?

I agree that division here at home helps the Russians as it would help any adversary, which is why the Russians were supporting the civil rights movement back in the 60's as the division it created worked to their advantage. Where we disagree is how effective their influence was/is. The fact that the division exists is not proof that the Russians are responsible for it.

I'll comment about the biolab story when and if I brush up on it. I don't like talking about things I know next to nothing about.

I-5 wrote:I think those arguments are pretty weak, because I don't recall any americans complaining about sanctions being too weak before Russia invaded - although I do remember Zelensky asking what are you waiting for? He was right. Do you recall who else was saying sanctions should be stronger before the invastion occurred?

I don't understand why Biden would be opposing more domestic oil production, so I would criticize him for that as well.

As far as division goes, I do give him credit for trying to reach out to all americans and not pushing the us-them language that other presidents have used in the past. I don't think Biden is the reason for the division, but I'm open to hearing details if you think he is. But yes, the country is still divided, and Putin is still benefitting from that.

What do you mean? Many people including experts knew sanctions would not stop Putin, wouldn't stop Iran, and wouldn't stop North Korea. Sanctions are a way for Americans to feel good about their government taking a stand, while not actually doing much to stop the bad guys. Have you noticed that sanctions to my knowledge have no defeated a single rotten regime?

Even after sanctioning Saddam Hussein, he held power until we used our military to remove him. Putin is still in power after we sanctioned him for Crimea and it didn't stop him from invading Ukraine. North Korea has been sanctioned for decades. They just did some new missile tests. The Iranian regime is still in power. The Syrian regime is still in power.

So what exactly do you think sanctions do? It's not just Biden. It's Republicans who employ sanctions as well. They are mostly useless like Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods or his rubbish ban on people from certain countries comes in. It's all for show and does nothing.

That's the point of my criticism of sanctions. They don't hurt the people they are supposed to hurt. They just isolate and hurt the regular folk of a given nation, while the Putin's, Kim Jong Un's, and Iranian Ayatollah's use them as propaganda to recruit while they're eating well in their palaces and killing anyone who opposes them.

Why do you think it is great to impose sanctions that severely hammer the regular folk of a nation while leaving their leadership untouched and continuing to live well? These are not Democratically elected leaders, but tyrants with a powerful military class that serves them to keep the people oppressed. All they do is take food from the common folk to feed their military leadership who protects them and keep on holding power.

That's why I don't like sanctions. Doesn't hit who it is supposed to hit and makes life miserable for the regular people in a nation.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:As far as Ukraine goes, yeah, Putin miscalculated. He thought he could just kick down the door and everyone would either give up the fight or welcome him as a liberator. Turn out Ukrainians are proud of being Ukrainians and aren’t willing to be under the thumb of a dictator. And they are willing to fight for it. It’s been discussed in this thread already; Putin now needs to either win this thing, be given an out, or retreat and lose face. I’m hoping for the middle option. The first I don’t want at all and the 3rd I don’t see happening.

I think he did miscalculate this time. He is looking weak like he wasted a lot of time and resources for nothing. Maybe the Russian people will finally stand up to him in a large enough group he can't lock them all up. He can't kill or imprison them all.

Russians have revolted before. Maybe they will revolt enough this time to end Putin or least set up to have a better leader when Putin is done. I can't imagine regular Russians or even many of the oligarchs who were living well are enjoying the world shunning them for some country they don't even need or want.

Aseahawkfan wrote:That's why I don't like sanctions. Doesn't hit who it is supposed to hit and makes life miserable for the regular people in a nation.

I fully agree sanctions don't hurt anyone but the innocent. If we could sanction Putin directly, it would be much better, but that's the the hard part. The next best thing is sanctioning his oligarchs, who are really his mafia that hold the assets for him. That's not so easy either. But even though the sanctions don't affect Putin now, how will millions of Russians feel if they are being crushed by them a few months from now? It could be too late for Ukraine by then, but I understand the long game of sanctions.

Of the three war scenarios Mack put forth, I think #1 (Russia 'wins') is possible, and I agree it would be similar to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, which didn't end well. I don't see a way for Putin to disengage without his ego suffering so I don't think he'll do that unless he runs out of soldier and equipment. I also think it's still possible that Russia could 'lose' the war. So far, their military has shown itself to be pathetic. The only thing they've succeeded in doing so far is hitting buildings from afar with artillery and dropping bombs. I feel they would no match for the Ukrainians in a ground battle. The Ukrainians are better trained, have more and more equipment coming, recruiting more and more volunteers to fight, and they know all the hidden places. I would be terrified to go into a battle in the city is I was a russian soldier.

Sanctions are hurting Russia plenty, and they are not "innocents" their decades of tacit approval of Putin's totalitarianism while they fully enjoying the increased benefits and advantages of the surface level benefits of western culture makes them at least implicitly complicit in what Putin is doing now. All these sanctions are doing is taking away those surface level trappings of western civilization and making them see the product of their complicity.

To be honest. I've hade more bourbon than normal this evening but I still think that all scans...

And this ain't WW3. WW2 1/2 at most. The second Putin gives the order to push the nuclear option he gets a bullet in the back of the head. His underlings fully understand that line may not be crossed under any circumstances.

c_hawkbob wrote:Sanctions are hurting Russia plenty, and they are not "innocents" their decades of tacit approval of Putin's totalitarianism while they fully enjoying the increased benefits and advantages of the surface level benefits of western culture makes them at least implicitly complicit in what Putin is doing now. All these sanctions are doing is taking away those surface level trappings of western civilization and making them see the product of their complicity.

To be honest. I've hade more bourbon than normal this evening but I still think that all scans...

And this ain't WW3. WW2 1/2 at most. The second Putin gives the order to push the nuclear option he gets a bullet in the back of the head. His underlings fully understand that line may not be crossed under any circumstances.

Let me guess: Wild Turkey?

I'm pretty much in agreement with you. As is the case with our command and control structure, Putin needs the agreement of a number of subordinates who, by their own rules, are authorized not to follow his orders should he make an unjustifiable decision to 'push the button.' It's not WW3, or at least not what my idea of WW3 is. As someone once said, World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

c_hawkbob wrote:Sanctions are hurting Russia plenty, and they are not "innocents" their decades of tacit approval of Putin's totalitarianism while they fully enjoying the increased benefits and advantages of the surface level benefits of western culture makes them at least implicitly complicit in what Putin is doing now. All these sanctions are doing is taking away those surface level trappings of western civilization and making them see the product of their complicity.

To be honest. I've hade more bourbon than normal this evening but I still think that all scans...

And this ain't WW3. WW2 1/2 at most. The second Putin gives the order to push the nuclear option he gets a bullet in the back of the head. His underlings fully understand that line may not be crossed under any circumstances.

What do you mean not innocents? His people that he steps on and kills if they stand against him? Or his core power group that he uses to step on his people and kill them if they stand against him?

I agree about his core power group. I disagree with that assessment of regular Russians. I've read some of the attempts to unseat Putin and he just has the military disperse and imprison them or kills them. The vote in Russia is not a real vote much like a vote in China or North Korea or Iraq. Just for show. How do the Russians remove Putin if their vote doesn't count?

I agree. This isn't WW3. The longer this goes with no nuclear attacks, the less I worry about it. It's looking more and more like this is the end of Putin whether soon or after he dies. The Russian people sound like they don't support this, didn't sign off on it, didn't know it was going to happen, and even the Russian oligarchs seem like they aren't happy with it and didn't want it to happen. There is some core portion of the Russian government backing him. Even the Russian military doesn't want to be in Ukraine. It all seems like Putin and a core leadership group did this and the vast majority of Russians don't want anything to do with this including a good portion of their military. It all looks like Putin miscalculated on the resolve of The West to stand against him and shun Russia, the willingness of his few allies to actually stand with him, and even the desire of the Russian people to take back Ukraine. It seems to have all gone wrong for Putin on many fronts.

c_hawkbob wrote:And this ain't WW3. WW2 1/2 at most. The second Putin gives the order to push the nuclear option he gets a bullet in the back of the head. His underlings fully understand that line may not be crossed under any circumstances.

I'm encouraged that you're confident his underlings would never let him cross that line. I know they have a checks and balances protocal for nuclear codes like we do (they even have a 'nuclear football' briefcase called 'Cheget'), but with their autocratic system I'm just not sure how it really works. I hope you are right for all of our sakes.

The fact he has brought up nukes a couple times in the past 2 weeks is pretty telling that he is that desperate to win at all costs.

I-5 wrote:I'm encouraged that you're confident his underlings would never let him cross that line. I know they have a checks and balances protocal for nuclear codes like we do (they even have a 'nuclear football' briefcase called 'Cheget'), but with their autocratic system I'm just not sure how it really works. I hope you are right for all of our sakes.

The fact he has brought up nukes a couple times in the past 2 weeks is pretty telling that he is that desperate to win at all costs.

I'm not as confident as c-bob if Putin ordered a nuclear attack it wouldn't happen. I'm fairly certain it would not be a full launch with everyone following orders to end the world. But I know a certain percentage would follow the orders.

I think I'm more worried about the nuclear submarines who often are out of the loop for news and diplomacy. If the nuclear submarines receive the order and the onboard officers have no one to override them but the officers in charge of authorizing launch, they may just do it believing the order is absolutely necessary.

What are the chances a nuclear submarine captain has a way of checking the orders and countermanding them? I am not sure if communication confirms launch authorization.

RiverDog wrote:
Let me guess: Wild Turkey?

No, Woodford Reserve. Very nice.

RiverDog wrote:Let me guess: Wild Turkey?

c_hawkbob wrote:No, Woodford Reserve. Very nice.

For some reason, I thought that you were a Wild Turkey drinker.

Agreed about the sanctions hurting the innocent, but I'll add that it hurts innocents on both sides of the equation. They act to inflate prices and create shortages in the country imposing them as well as those in the targeted country. But short of military action, it's the only option available and may be the reason that Russia has come to the bargaining table.

I also agree with ASF, that sanctions are as much a psychological move as they are an economic countermeasure, so that people in this country get the sense that we're doing something, but in this case where they are so widespread and being done internationally, I do think that they will have an effect if this thing drags out into the summer.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:And if Putin does go for full conquest, he’d likely have another Afghanistan on his hands. The west will support Ukrainian guerrillas and the major difference would be a largely united citizen would be fighting instead of a fractured tribal populace a La the Mujahideen. Putin needs Ukraine to fold without occupation or he’ll get a decade of guerrilla war.

Yuppers. Putin may well defeat the Ukrainian army, topple their government, and set up a puppet government, but there's no way he's going to be able to govern the populace, especially now that he's turning his attack dogs on strictly civilian targets.

Putin HAS to know this as he had first hand experience with the Soviet's occupation of Afghanistan.

Here are a couple of articles that might help us in the west understand the Russian mindset and history along with who his inner circle are:

https://www.ft.com/content/503fb110-f91 ... ket-newtab

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ ... ket-newtab

RiverDog wrote:Let me guess: Wild Turkey?

c_hawkbob wrote:No, Woodford Reserve. Very nice.

RiverDog wrote:For some reason, I thought that you were a Wild Turkey drinker.

They were giving away bottles of Woodford as prizes at the conference function I was attending last night and featuring it at the open bar. It was the only Bourbon available. I am a Turkey drinker but this is actually a better bourbon. It's more than twice as spendy, but I'll still buy me a bottle now and then.

On another note I overlooked last night:

One of the first acts that Biden did when he took office was to issue an executive order halting the construction of the Keystone pipeline

So what? The Keystone pipeline 1: was a project still mostly unfinished and having zero effect on the price of oil and 2: is only a pipeline it would never have added a single drop of oil to the countries oil reserves. In fact, only about half of the oil flowing through that pipeline would wind up in the US anyway, it intended purpose was to help transport Canadian oil to Gulf Coast refineries that would be sell much (if not most) of it for export.

c_hawkbob wrote:So what? The Keystone pipeline 1: was a project still mostly unfinished and having zero effect on the price of oil and 2: is only a pipeline it would never have added a single drop of oil to the countries oil reserves. In fact, only about half of the oil flowing through that pipeline would wind up in the US anyway, it intended purpose was to help transport Canadian oil to Gulf Coast refineries that would be sell much (if not most) of it for export.

The movement of oil from Point A to Point B most definitely has an effect on price. If it doesn't move through a pipeline, which requires very little labor, then it needs to be moved by some other less cost efficient mode, ie trucks, rail, or barges. One of the factors in the cost of gas last spring was a shortage of truck drivers. Also, if a refinery is able to use oil from Canada, it puts more oil on the open market, thus reducing price. Not only that, but transporting it through a pipeline is a safer than the other aforementioned methods and more environmentally friendly as it doesn't require burning diesel like the other modes.

The Keystone pipeline may not have had an immediate effect on price because as you note, it's a years long project. But it highlights Biden and the Democrat's haste to get us off fossil fuels, something that even a conservative like me endorses, but they're getting ahead of themselves. Approvals for drilling permits have dropped off drastically in recent months, yet now Biden's calling on oil producers to increase production:

Interior Department approvals to drill oil and gas wells on public lands have dropped significantly in recent months, a shift from 2021, when the Biden administration topped the Trump administration's permitting record in its first year.

The Bureau of Land Management in January approved just 95 permits for oil and natural gas wells across federal lands in the United States, a plunge from the zenith of 643 issued last April, according to a review of data by E&E News.

Speaking of cost, pipeline is also far and away the cheapest mode of transport. Ranges vary based primarily on distance traveled and grades of crude, but pipeline transportation generally ranges between $2 and $4 per barrel. Rail transport typically costs 2-5 times pipeline transport. Barge varies significantly by distance, but is commonly cheaper than rail and more expensive than pipeline. Finally, trucking is the most expensive and is usually cost prohibitive except for shorter haul shipments.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tortoisein ... 43cf9912dc

RiverDog wrote:Agreed about the sanctions hurting the innocent, but I'll add that it hurts innocents on both sides of the equation. They act to inflate prices and create shortages in the country imposing them as well as those in the targeted country. But short of military action, it's the only option available and may be the reason that Russia has come to the bargaining table.

I also agree with ASF, that sanctions are as much a psychological move as they are an economic countermeasure, so that people in this country get the sense that we're doing something, but in this case where they are so widespread and being done internationally, I do think that they will have an effect if this thing drags out into the summer.

If sanctions had a history of working, I'd support them. But they don't seem to work. I can't think of a time in history when they've worked. They often just make the situation worse by making the population in said sanctioned country hate the sanctioning country worse further emboldening them to resist. The leadership usually lets all the hardship fall on the regular population then uses the sanctions as propaganda to pain the sanctioning nation as the enemy galvanizing a resistance and possible militarization.

I can't think of a time when a nation went, "Sanctions. Oh no, please don't sanction me. I'll stop doing all the bad, evil stuff I'm doing because you took things away from me." Most of the tyrants already doing the bad stuff have had sanctions on them for years, so they are accustomed to them and don't care when they happen. They expect sanctions and laugh a them.

The real key will be how regular Russians view them. How big of an anti-war resistance movement can the Russians muster and is it enough where Putin's core power group goes: this is out of hand and we cannot kill or imprison this many people. So far it's looking more interesting in Russia than I thought it would be. They might have a real sizeable anti-war movement rise up in Russia for the first time I can ever recall in my life.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If sanctions had a history of working, I'd support them. But they don't seem to work. I can't think of a time in history when they've worked.

They worked when Reagan slapped them on South Africa to pressure them to give up their policy of Apartheid. However, South Africa was a democratic country and their leaders actually cared about the welfare of their people. Plus Apartheid was doomed to eventual failure anyway. The sanctions just moved things along more quickly. But I agree with you, in most cases, they don't work. We've had sanctions on Cuba in place for 60 years and they're able to duck them because if we won't do business with them, some other country will.

But these sanctions are different. First of all, many more countries are participating in the sanctions than in any previous that have been attempted. Additionally, there's more breadth to them as they include the private sector, from oil companies to fast food to tech companies, and they're sanctioning individuals that are close to Putin. These are not your garden variety sanctions. They're apples and oranges compared to any that have been used in the past 200 years.

Outside of that, I agree completely that there is no winner in them. But you have to think of them like one would in a labor strike. The company obviously loses sales, productivity, etc, and the workers never reclaim lost wages from being out on strike, so in one sense, nobody wins. But in the POV of the strikers, the long term effect is higher wages and benefits for future workers that would not have been attained had they not bit the bullet and made a sacrifice. That's how we have to look at sanctions.

RiverDog wrote:They worked when Reagan slapped them on South Africa to pressure them to give up their policy of Apartheid. However, South Africa was a democratic country and their leaders actually cared about the welfare of their people. Plus Apartheid was doomed to eventual failure anyway. The sanctions just moved things along more quickly. But I agree with you, in most cases, they don't work. We've had sanctions on Cuba in place for 60 years and they're able to duck them because if we won't do business with them, some other country will.

But these sanctions are different. First of all, many more countries are participating in the sanctions than in any previous that have been attempted. Additionally, there's more breadth to them as they include the private sector, from oil companies to fast food to tech companies, and they're sanctioning individuals that are close to Putin. These are not your garden variety sanctions. They're apples and oranges compared to any that have been used in the past 200 years.

Outside of that, I agree completely that there is no winner in them. But you have to think of them like one would in a labor strike. The company obviously loses sales, productivity, etc, and the workers never reclaim lost wages from being out on strike, so in one sense, nobody wins. But in the POV of the strikers, the long term effect is higher wages and benefits for future workers that would not have been attained had they not bit the bullet and made a sacrifice. That's how we have to look at sanctions.

Apartheid is an incredibly complex topic. It ended for a variety of reasons mostly having to do with the effort of South Africans themselves to end that evil practice. It lasted as with all these disgusting racial supremacy movements too long and did too much evil in the process.

We will see if these unprecedented sanctions crush Putin. So far he is not stopping and does not seem to care.

I have just read an article where China is negotiating with Saudi Arabia to purchase oil for Yuan. If that happens, Biden will go down as the president who lost America's place as the reserve currency and a major power position driving demand for United States dollars which keeps our currency strong. So you'll have high inflation, weak dollar demand, a world economy moving East, and a Russia looking to avoid sanctions by being able to accept payment in Yuan they can use to purchase goods and services from China further strengthening China's economic position and demand for their currency.

We'll see how this plays out. If Russia and China can force this paradigm shift, then Biden will have been outmaneuvered badly and be known as the president that led to the downfall of American economic supremacy. That won't be so good for America. People have no idea how much they benefit from having the dollar as a reserve currency and how important Saudi Arabia is to maintaining it. If that relationship is undermined it will be one of those quiet occurrences that most Americans don't realize is the moment the torch was passed from America to China for becoming the number one economic power in the world. If nations who America has sanctioned can build an entire alternate world economy based on the Yuan, America's ability to engage in economic warfare is greatly reduced.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Apartheid is an incredibly complex topic. It ended for a variety of reasons mostly having to do with the effort of South Africans themselves to end that evil practice. It lasted as with all these disgusting racial supremacy movements too long and did too much evil in the process.

Agreed. But they were a factor, albeit a small one. Like I said, Apartheid was doomed anyway. It's incredible that it lasted as long as it did.

Aseahawkfan wrote:We will see if these unprecedented sanctions crush Putin. So far he is not stopping and does not seem to care.

Sanctions are a long game. They don't work within a matter of weeks. They could take months or they could take a year or longer. It takes time for consumers to use up inventory, for citizens to start getting frustrated and for them to identify the problems they're experiencing as controllable by their leaders.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I have just read an article where China is negotiating with Saudi Arabia to purchase oil for Yuan. If that happens, Biden will go down as the president who lost America's place as the reserve currency and a major power position driving demand for United States dollars which keeps our currency strong. So you'll have high inflation, weak dollar demand, a world economy moving East, and a Russia looking to avoid sanctions by being able to accept payment in Yuan they can use to purchase goods and services from China further strengthening China's economic position and demand for their currency.

We'll see how this plays out. If Russia and China can force this paradigm shift, then Biden will have been outmaneuvered badly and be known as the president that led to the downfall of American economic supremacy. That won't be so good for America. People have no idea how much they benefit from having the dollar as a reserve currency and how important Saudi Arabia is to maintaining it. If that relationship is undermined it will be one of those quiet occurrences that most Americans don't realize is the moment the torch was passed from America to China for becoming the number one economic power in the world. If nations who America has sanctioned can build an entire alternate world economy based on the Yuan, America's ability to engage in economic warfare is greatly reduced.

Interesting take. China is dependent on trade with the west as much if not more than Russia is so they might be cutting off their nose to spite their face, but I'll have to read up on it some to give a decent response.

RiverDog wrote:Interesting take. China is dependent on trade with the west as much if not more than Russia is so they might be cutting off their nose to spite their face, but I'll have to read up on it some to give a decent response.

Hopefully it doesn't happen. Quiet moves like these are truly the most dangerous. The big obvious moves people see them coming and can anticipate them and react. It's these little quiet moves that change things that most people don't even understand why.

If China can increase the demand for their Yuan and strengthen their currency, they can make it so most trade goes through China with them in the dominant position with other nations having to buy their Yuan to make purchases just as right now most people have to buy dollars to conduct business globally. Almost every nation in the world buys dollars to do business between nations. If they can buy dollars or yuan, big paradigm shift. One of the reasons our currency maintains its strength even with massive money printing is global dollar demand.

China won't stop selling to the West. This is more of a long game move that won't have an immediate impact. A move that will seem very quiet, then years later will be looked back on as when America lost its economic dominance on a global scale to China.

You won't have to worry about it at your age. Or myself likely. But if it happens, it will start the end of the dollar as "the" global reserve currency and provide alternative means for nations to conduct global commerce that won't rely on American dollars and thus the American economy. Basically, other nations can completely ignore America and any companies including American companies will have to learn to conduct business using the yuan.

China, Russia, and other nations have been trying to undermine the dollar as the global reserve currency for decades as it weakens American economic power immensely and creates an alternative to dollars, the primary means by which America enforces sanctions by cutting them off from accessing dollars via the global banking system.

Imagine the yuan (renmibi) shooting up the charts and the dollar dropping b 50% or more in terms of currency demand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency

The dollar's role as the undisputed reserve currency of the world allows the United States to impose unilateral sanctions against actions performed between other countries, for example the American fine against BNP Paribas for violations of U.S. sanctions that were not laws of France or the other countries involved in the transactions.[29] In 2014 China and Russia signed a 150 billion yuan central bank liquidity swap line agreement to get around European and American sanctions on their behaviors.