Support NeoGAF

[sc0la]

So did they show don jr the pee tape at the meeting, after getting them to accept the meeting under the guise that it was dirt on Clinton? [/fanfiction]

Edit:
God damn why do I always hit the top of the page with my most garbage posts.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It seems literally impossible for Putin to achieve more power than he already has within Russia!

This is not a good understanding of Russia. For example, Putin's Crimean adventure was an attempt to restore failing authority at home.

https://www.brookings.edu/testimoni...deterring-russia-u-s-policies-and-strategies/

And yet the people do have considerable traction collectively. As in other countries, economic interests—like workers from huge manufacturing companies (especially in the defense sector), railway workers, miners—and those with important skills and functions that the state relies upon—like the intelligence operatives in the security services, or the members of the uniformed military—can bring some weight to the bargaining table. The aggregate opinion of these groups, and the population at large, as expressed in polls and through elections, is the essential element in affirming the legitimacy of the current Russia political system. Putin's popularity—his record as a leader and the public's ratings of his political performance over time—are critical to keep power in balance.

Everything in contemporary Russian politics depends on the maintenance of Putin's charismatic authority.

If you want to do something about that, you need to undermine Putin's authority, which is explicitly predicated in his role as defender against the West, and is buttressed by sanctions that predominantly hurt the Russian people and give them further reason to be hostile.

 

[kirblar]

This is not a good understanding of Russia. For example, Putin's Crimean adventure was an attempt to restore failing authority at home.

https://www.brookings.edu/testimoni...deterring-russia-u-s-policies-and-strategies/

So if hes lashing out to reaccumulate power, then bite back and tighten the screws when he lashes out?

You can't let this shit go unchallenged or he'll just keep doing it.

 

[Abinash117]

Not really. State power isn't just a function of a state's economy, but also of the ability of the state to actually leverage that economy. Whenever you consider sanctions, you have to stop and consider: these make Putin more popular and give him greater leverage internally. Is this specific sanction reducing the amount Putin can do or increasing it? I'm skeptical that the answer is 'reducing it' in anything more than a small minority of cases, particularly given the spotty track record of sanctions to date. Iraq was under sanctions for over a decade, North Korea has been under sanctions for several decades.

If there is a role for sanctions, it is in targeted sanctions that only apply to elite figures.

North Korea has largely been contained. Military wise, they have done very little, however their the pursuit of nuclear weapons may require a different method, but the sanctions have done the job of keeping them in their borders and preventing an attack on South Korea for decades.

The Ukraine sanctions targeted the elite, that was the intention. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26672800

The decline of the Russian economy has a lot to do with the failing of oil prices and some say the main reason.

 

[Got the Shakes]

I'm not even surprised by this sort of hypocrisy from the Trump admin at this point.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/17/spic...erica-protectionism--for-trump-companies.html

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So if hes lashing out to reaccumulate power, then bite back and tighten the screws when he lashes out?

You can't let this shit go unchallenged or he'll just keep doing it.

You're trying to shut the gate after the horses have bolted. The most important thing for America and the European Union is to secure their own position. That means heavy military investment in Poland and the Baltic States, it means heavy military investment in protecting democratic and political systems and other key infrastructure, and it means reducing reliance on Russian energy where possible. Sanctions aren't 'challenging' Putin. They bolster and secure his power internally. He's quite content in the face of sanctions.

There's a good article on this here:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/28/sanctions-are-a-failurelets-admit-that/

 

[kirblar]

You're trying to shut the gate after the horses have bolted. The most important thing for America and the European Union is to secure their own position. That means heavy military investment in Poland and the Baltic States, it means heavy military investment in protecting democratic and political systems and other key infrastructure, and it means reducing reliance on Russian energy where possible. Sanctions aren't 'challenging' Putin. They bolster and secure his power internally. He's quite content in the face of sanctions.

There's a good article on this here:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/28/sanctions-are-a-failurelets-admit-that/

You can do that too! (and we should!)

I would agree that empowering the EU/Nato and actually giving them teeth is a good thing (and a silver lining of Trump's election.)

 

[Plinko]

PublicPolicyPolling‏Verified account @ppppolls

Nugget from our national poll coming out tomorrow- only 45% of Trump voters believe Donald Trump Jr. had a meeting with Russians...

This is America, 2017.

 

[Slizeezyc]

This is America, 2017.

Feel like that's actually a good number considering the hoops you jump through to vote for Trump in the first place. Plus what are the chances they think the Jr. is actually just Donald's full name and don't even realize his son has same name?

 

[Aaron Strife]

This is America, 2017.

That's a little better than I would have expected.

I'd say about half of Trump's voters are gone forever. Dead-end brain dead morons who would defend him even if he stormed their homes and shot their families dead. I mean, given that BCRA is just a roundabout way of doing that.

 

[Dan]

On the other hand, that means 55% of Trump voters do not believe the words that come out of Donald Trump Jr's mouth.

 

[jtb]

PPP is troll-y garbage and I feel a little guilty every time one of their polls manages to elicit a chuckle from me.

 

[Owzers]

On the other hand, that means 55% of Trump voters do not believe the words that come out of Donald Trump Jr's mouth.

I think if the media reports something negative they won't believe it no matter what.

 

[Abinash117]

You can do that too! (and we should!)

I would agree that empowering the EU/Nato and actually giving them teeth is a good thing (and a silver lining of Trump's election.)

They/we already been doing that.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35930130

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/world/europe/eastern-europe-us-military.html

http://wbj.pl/duda-poland-to-increase-military-spending/

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/02/baltic-states-easy-target-170217090527328.html

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

If sanctions were not at least potentially harming Putin's ability to govern effectively, he would not be so desperate that he would risk incurring more by engaging in covert efforts to undermine the sovereignty of Western nation-states.

 

[BlastProcessing]

@jimsciutto
Just in: Russian Dep Foreign Minister Rybakov says Russian government "almost" at a deal on getting back property seized by the US

Peace for our time.

 

[chadskin]

chad, I think that's an unfair representation of what Valhelm is saying. Yes, there is obviously an enormous amount of media and political propoganda in Russia, and the Russian political system is an enormous con designed to bolster support for Putin, and this is the main reason Putin is popular. But regardless of the reason, Putin is still popular, and accordingly sponsoring regime change efforts is likely to alienate the average Russian, rather than draw them nearer, since it is the US seen as illegitimately subverting the rightful leader of the country. Or in other words: it's deeply counterproductive. From the perspective of your average Russian, the meddling in the US election is a fair response!

There's an article in Foreign Policy arguing as much:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/13...clinton-trump-putin-ukraine-syria-how-to-fix/

I think the right approach will be ultimately a very pragmatic and boring one: the Putin administration is sufficiently entrenched that any grand plans or unifying projects for dismantling the regime or bringing Russia into the family of Europe are distant dreams. The best that Europe can reasonably hope for is containment.

I'm not advocating for regime change in Russia, FWIW, and I don't think anyone in here did. I think conventional wisdom is right in that Putin may be bad but at least he's a known quantity while any potential successor may be worse, not to mention the kind of instability a sudden regime change would introduce. Russia's a lot more complex than, say, Ukraine in part because it's so closely built around Putin.

That said, if one were to seriously entertain the idea of regime change, I'd argue Putin's popularity in Russia matters much, much less than Putin's popularity in Moscow. In the last 2016 election his party "only" won 38% of the vote in Moscow and 46% in the Moscow Oblast, with a turnout of just 35% and 38% respectively -- that's pretty bad. One has to wonder what the figures would look like without stuffed ballots.

Regardless, sanctions are primarily meant to change specific behavior, not the regime. Without sanctions, where's your lever to at least try to bring about positive change? "Hey, give Crimea back, we'll lift our sanctions and your economy will strengthen, in turn strengthening your power" is arguably a better position to be in than "Hey, give Crimea back or ... um ... else!"

Sanctions aren't an impediment to a pragmatic approach elsewhere, either. Putin was more than eager to continue talking about an extension of the New START treaty earlier this year -- it was Trump who shot it down because Obama.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I misread your original post and I agree with you know. At least mostly.
I was saying that defacto alawite rule in Syria exacerbates ethnic cleansing. In your response post, however...

I don't endorse the Syrian government or believe the Assad family are good people, but I recognize that in their conflict with this specific Wahhabist enemy they are the lesser evil.

I don't know about this. I already mentioned that dictatorial rule in Syria exacerbates sectarian sentiment in the disenfranchised parts of the populace. Sunnis are not used to being ruled by heretics, especially not backwards, rural Alawites. Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford claims we already knew which segments of the Syrian rebellion were moderate and pliable, but that we missed our chance and it's too late because they're already dead or refugees. The fact that at this stage in the war, half a decade after its outset, the only legitimate government in Syria is preferable to ISIS, is not in itself an indictment of what you call US imperialism, since there was an even lesser of three evils previously.

Ideally, their power would be held by a more democratic and accountable government. The Syrian Kurds do offer a hint of a viable alternative to the Ba'athist police state. But there is no outcome in which the sectarian rebels leave Syria a more prosperous and liberated country.

YPG, Baathist Assad regime... forgive me for reading too much in between the lines but I sense a bias toward the Middle Eastern socialist-secularist movements. And for an anti-imperialist it strikes me as extremely odd you'd propose forming a government solely by picking winners from a foreign ethnic minority that has nearly no presence in most of Syria proper.

Spoiler

Maybe it's because you're trying to export Kurdish socialism in a 21st century rebranding of Stalinist imperialism. Jk! Mostly.

Let me offer an alternative perspective. There is no outcome in Syria, or most other places in the middle east, in which the highly religious majority accept rule by heretical minorities because they will turn to violent militias to restore religious sanity in the country.

 

[Surfinn]

@jimsciutto
Just in: Russian Dep Foreign Minister Rybakov says Russian government "almost" at a deal on getting back property seized by the US

Peace for our time.

Maybe we should just turn over our military while we're at it

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Assad has precipitated the death of over half a million people, I am not sure there is any regime that Syria could have swapped to that would be worse than that. That's not to say I would have been in favor of increased US involvement at any point, I am long past being interested in Western states attempting to impose "preferable" governments on the rest of the world, but let's at least acknowledge that, no, Assad is not "preferable" so much as he is the path of least resistance as of right now.

 

[Got the Shakes]

Maybe we should just turn over our military while we're at it

I mean we already turned over the executive branch of our government to them so handing over the military isn't a big stretch...

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Assad has precipitated the death of over half a million people, I am not sure there is any regime that Syria could have swapped to that would be worse than that. That's not to say I would have been in favor of increased US involvement at any point, I am long past being interested in Western states attempting to impose "preferable" governments on the rest of the world, but let's at least acknowledge that, no, Assad is not "preferable" so much as he is the path of least resistance as of right now.

I think it would be worse if ISIS was in charge of Syria.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That said, if one were to seriously entertain the idea of regime change, I'd argue Putin's popularity in Russia matters much, much less than Putin's popularity in Moscow. In the last 2016 election his party "only" won 38% of the vote in Moscow and 46% in the Moscow Oblast, with a turnout of just 35% and 38% respectively -- that's pretty bad. One has to wonder what the figures would look like without stuffed ballots.

I think you are over-rating the influence of Moscow specifically. Moscow does obviously hold an outsized place, but most of Russia is not Moscow and there is a considerable powerbase availabe operating from outside of Moscow.

Regardless, sanctions are primarily meant to change specific behavior, not the regime. Without sanctions, where's your lever to at least try to bring about positive change? "Hey, give Crimea back, we'll lift our sanctions and your economy will strengthen, in turn strengthening your power" is arguably a better position to be in than "Hey, give Crimea back or ... um ... else!"

This is not how it works.

First, you have to understand that from the perspective of the average Russian, Crimea was always Russian. It was given away to Ukraine as a piece of internal USSR meddling in an era when nobody thought the USSR would ever fall apart. Sevastapol and the Crimean War are seminal points in Russian history. There is a significant Russian base there. To the average Russian, Russia was merely reclaiming what was 'theirs'; this was a legitimate action.

Given this was a legitimate action (not really, but from their perspective), at the moment you place the sanctions, ordinary Russian people understand that the economy got worse because the United States decided to make it worse. It's not because of Putin - or at least, insofar as it was because of Putin, he was doing the right thing and securing the safety of Russians in Crimea, and you can't blame him for the United States' unjust reaction. So the United States is responsible for the downturn, inflicting on an innocent Russia unjust sanctions because the United States can't bear to see Russia do well, and is hated for that. Conversely, since Putin stands against this, his popularity is entrenched further (it was actually begin to recede quite significantly prior to Crimea, since the Russian economy was doing poorly sans sanctions and there was no clear scapegoat).

Finally, that means that Putin wouldn't be rewarded for complying with sanctions. Giving back Crimea would be a concession that Russia isn't great and can't protect the motherland. It would be a capitulation, a collaboration, and would damage Putin internally far more than resisting them (which actually helps him secure his position). You fundamentally misunderstood the motives at stake if you think sanctions are a means to getting Crimea returned. Bluntly speaking, Crimea is never going to be returned within the foreseeable future. If your Russian foreign policy is dictated by what happened in Crimea, you have a failed foreign policy. That issue was already decisively won by Russia, there's no going back.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I mean we already turned over the executive branch of our government to them so handing over the military isn't a big stretch...

What an exaggeration of Russian influence. We just approved the offensive missile systems in Poland Obama had cancelled in favor of strictly defense ones.

 

[Wilsongt]

So Dumber decided to speak.



Eric Trump @EricTrump

Suddenly @CNN has a moral compass? Giving the debate questions to your preferred candidate ahead of time - is that bad for our democracy?
Jim Acosta @Acosta
Calling the American news media "fake news" may feel good to some. It may energize the base. But it's bad for our democracy.
6:17 AM · Jul 17, 2017

 

[shinra-bansho]

That's just what neoliberal Brookings wants you to think.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

So Dumber decided to speak.



Eric Trump @EricTrump

Suddenly @CNN has a moral compass? Giving the debate questions to your preferred candidate ahead of time - is that bad for our democracy?
Jim Acosta @Acosta
Calling the American news media "fake news" may feel good to some. It may energize the base. But it's bad for our democracy.
6:17 AM · Jul 17, 2017

I dont understand why they're picking on CNN when they bring on alt right/loyal trump supporters for every panel or discussion.

 

[Abinash117]

Assad has precipitated the death of over half a million people, I am not sure there is any regime that Syria could have swapped to that would be worse than that. That's not to say I would have been in favor of increased US involvement at any point, I am long past being interested in Western states attempting to impose "preferable" governments on the rest of the world, but let's at least acknowledge that, no, Assad is not "preferable" so much as he is the path of least resistance as of right now.

He isn't the path of least resistance and the US has not even really changed it's opinion on Assad. The argument has been made that it between Assad or Islamists however, that argument is something that the government has been accused of using to force western countries to choose between them. That has never been the case, because the rebels don't really have the capability to full beat the government anytime soon, but they are a major threat to the government still. The government can't focus two enemies ISIS and the rebels so that is way they are focusing on ISIS now.

The US has been very successful of capturing territory from ISIS and are almost at the point of capturing Raqqa. The only really stronghold left for ISIS is a single providence, Deir-Ezzor. Both the government and the US has eyes on that right now. ISIS is losing in Syria like they have been in Iraq.

When people say things like choosing between Assad or the Islamists. They are ignorant on what is actually going on. It was never like that; the government wants it to be like that. The US never needed the government and has used the SDF to fight ISIS and they have been one of the most successful at that.

I think it would be worse if ISIS was in charge of Syria.

There was no realistic chance of that happening, especially after the US got more involved and then Russia.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That's just what neoliberal Brookings wants you to think.

that's exactly what a member of the brogeois would say.

 

[tuxfool]

If sanctions were not at least potentially harming Putin's ability to govern effectively, he would not be so desperate that he would risk incurring more by engaging in covert efforts to undermine the sovereignty of Western nation-states.

He was the one that started by invading Ukraine. Or Georgia.

Sanctions or no Sanctions he isn't going to behave, and he didn't change that from when Oil prices were high.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I think it would be worse if ISIS was in charge of Syria.

This is true, but I was speaking with respect to supposedly extremist factions within Syria, itself, not conquest from without.

Abinash: The argument that we have no idea wtf would happen if we toppled Assad and allowed other groups to take the reins of state remains valid.

tuxfool: Of course he "started it", but the very fact he has resorted to the tactics he has indicate that, yes, sanctions are damaging to him, given he manifestly does not care about the lesser well-being of his citizens that sanctions are precipitating, specifically.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If sanctions were not at least potentially harming Putin's ability to govern effectively, he would not be so desperate that he would risk incurring more by engaging in covert efforts to undermine the sovereignty of Western nation-states.

This doesn't make any sense.

According to you, if Putin engages in covert actions, he makes more sanctions more likely.

According to you, sanctions harm Putin's ability to govern effectively (and implicitly therefore he does not want to make more sanctions more likely).

So by the argument you present, Putin ought to not engage in covert actions. But we have clear evidence that he has and will continue to do so. Therefore, one of your assumptions must be wrong.

Given that the US political system has been making bipartisan noises about increasing the sanctions in place, it's probably not the first. Which logically implies you are wrong about your second assumption, and therefore: sanctions aren't really having much of an impact (on Putin himself).

 

[Sadsic]

poll i have in the field right now - only 57% of conservatives "strongly approve" of trump at this point

the numbers are getting pretty frail here

 

[Wilsongt]

These fuckers.

“We’re not saying that transgender people can’t serve, but if you are going to take the big step of serving in the U.S. military, figure out whether you are a man or a woman before you join up. We’re saying taxpayers in this country right now are not going to foot the bill for it. This is a silly thing. It’s time to put this to bed.” (Hunter ended his statement by saying, “Let’s make America great again.”)

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) compared letting the Pentagon to pay for gender transition to the Ottoman Empire castrating slaves to serve in the infantry.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call
“What they did in order to keep them from reproducing was that they did reassignment surgery on those slaves they had captured, that they had put into their janissary troops,” said King. “And that reassignment surgery was they took them from being a virile, reproductive male into being a eunuch. That’s a lesson of the military—the Ottoman military—from two, three, 400 years ago.”

http://www.newnownext.com/steve-king-transgender-army/07/2017/?xrs=synd_facebook_logo

 

[whyamihere]

poll i have in the field right now - only 57% of conservatives "strongly approve" of trump at this point

the numbers are getting pretty frail here

more context here pls

 

[tuxfool]

The sanctions may not have hurt Putin himself, but they certainly have hurt those around him, hence why these people are all trying to get things like the Maginsky act revoked.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The sanctions may not have hurt Putin himself, but they certainly have hurt those around him, hence why these people are all trying to get things like the Maginsky act revoked.

I actually support targeted sanctions like the Magnitsky Act, I'm specifically arguing against the wide-ranging blank-cheque sanctions that kirblar is arguing for.

 

[Valhelm]

You know what's part of containment? Reactive sanctions.

If all you care about is causing malnutrition and resentment, sure.

 

[Abinash117]

This is true, but I was speaking with respect to supposedly extremist factions within Syria, itself, not conquest from without.

Abinash: The argument that we have no idea wtf would happen if we toppled Assad and allowed other groups to take the reins of state remains valid.

The interim government was suppose to take over and new elections would be held.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Interim_Government

The intention if I remember correctly is pressure Assad to leave, and then have new elections. The aim was never to change or destroy the institutions .

 

[Sadsic]

more context here pls

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president? Is that strongly (approve/disapprove), or only somewhat?"

 

[kirblar]

I actually support targeted sanctions like the Magnitsky Act, I'm specifically arguing against the wide-ranging blank-cheque sanctions that kirblar is arguing for.

Please don't ascribe things to me for which I've never argued.

I'm defending "sactions" as a concept against those who think that the correct course on Russia is to do fucking nothing.

There are clearly people who know which exact types - the Magnistisky Act clearly is doing its job if Putin's so pissed about it.

I don't have a dog in that fight as to which kind it is. But doing nothing is not acceptable.

 

[Autodidact]

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president? Is that strongly (approve/disapprove), or only somewhat?"

How long are you leaving the paper on the church bulletin board?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Please don't ascribe things to me for which I've never argued.

I'm defending "sactions" as a concept against those who think that the correct course on Russia is to do fucking nothing.

The classic politician's fallacy.

Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it.

The correct policy is not do nothing. Nor is it to put in place wide-ranging economic sanctions. There are other policies that are neither of those. Oh, the nuance! Oh, the complexity!

 

[chadskin]

Given this was a legitimate action (not really, but from their perspective), at the moment you place the sanctions, ordinary Russian people understand that the economy got worse because the United States decided to make it worse. It's not because of Putin - or at least, insofar as it was because of Putin, he was doing the right thing and securing the safety of Russians in Crimea, and you can't blame him for the United States' unjust reaction. So the United States is responsible for the downturn, inflicting on an innocent Russia unjust sanctions because the United States can't bear to see Russia do well, and is hated for that. Conversely, since Putin stands against this, his popularity is entrenched further (it was actually begin to recede quite significantly prior to Crimea, since the Russian economy was doing poorly sans sanctions and there was no clear scapegoat).

Finally, that means that Putin wouldn't be rewarded for complying with sanctions. Giving back Crimea would be a concession that Russia isn't great and can't protect the motherland. It would be a capitulation, a collaboration. You fundamentally misunderstood the motives at stake if you think sanctions are a means to getting Crimea returned. Bluntly speaking, Crimea is never going to be returned within the foreseeable future. If your Russian foreign policy is dictated by what happened in Crimea, you have a failed foreign policy. That issue was already decisively won by Russia, there's no going back.

Like Valhelm you're falling into the same trap of treating Russia as kind of a democracy where the political leader's actions are shaped by the opinion of ordinary citizens in a sort-of bottom-up process. It's all true how you describe the views of ordinary Russians but, and that's the difference, they're being dictated from the top -- the Kremlin -- down to the ordinary Russians.

As an example, the concept of "Novorossiya" -- i.e. the annexation of larger swaths of Ukrainian territory and the creation of a new state -- had a support of 20-25% in Russia without a large propaganda drive. If Putin had made the decision to follow through on this concept, support for "Novorossiya" would've likely surged well, well above 50% for some of the same reasons -- historic land, always belonged to us anyway, yada yada yada.

Similarly, if Putin decides to change his behavior he'll rely on the Kremlin media to put an appropriate spin on it to sell it back to the ordinary Russians and they'll approve of it.

 

[kirblar]

The classic politician's fallacy.

Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it.

A necessary response to an international act of aggression is not "something" here. We didn't throw the first punch. But you sure as hell better throw one back.

 

[PBY]

The classic politician's fallacy.

Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it.

The correct policy is not do nothing. Nor is it to put in place wide-ranging economic sanctions. There are other policies that are neither of those. Oh, the nuance! Oh, the complexity!

THIS.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

This doesn't make any sense.

According to you, if Putin engages in covert actions, he makes more sanctions more likely.

According to you, sanctions harm Putin's ability to govern effectively (and implicitly therefore he does not want to make more sanctions more likely).

So by the argument you present, Putin ought to not engage in covert actions. But we have clear evidence that he has and will continue to do so. Therefore, one of your assumptions must be wrong.

Given that the US political system has been making bipartisan noises about increasing the sanctions in place, it's probably not the first. Which logically implies you are wrong about your second assumption, and therefore: sanctions aren't really having much of an impact (on Putin himself).

This argument assumes that no world leader would ever gamble with a tactic. Moreover, it ignores the distinction between the short-term (in which Putin is likely insulated from Russia's many, many problems) and the long-term (in which Putin could become vulnerable if public opinion were to turn against him after years of sanctions-induced economic stagnation).

 

[PBY]

A necessary response to an international act of aggression is not "something" here. We didn't throw the first punch. But you sure as hell better throw one back.

No you don't.

You better do something that fixes or mitigates the aggression. You just want escalation or some kind of response in kind. Also a schoolyard fight is a bad analogy for complex global conflict.

 

[kirblar]

The classic politician's fallacy.

Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it.

The correct policy is not do nothing. Nor is it to put in place wide-ranging economic sanctions. There are other policies that are neither of those. Oh, the nuance! Oh, the complexity!

Again, stop putting words in my goddamn mouth.

At no point have I argued for "wide-ranging economic sanctions".

No you don't.

You better do something that fixes or mitigates the aggression. You just want escalation or some kind of response in kind.

You make the mistake of thinking we can help these people.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Like Valhelm you're falling into the same trap of treating Russia as kind of a democracy where the political leader's actions are shaped by the opinion of ordinary citizens in a sort-of bottom-up process. It's all true how you describe the views of ordinary Russians but, and that's the difference, they're being dictated from the top -- the Kremlin -- down to the ordinary Russians.

As an example, the concept of "Novorossiya" -- i.e. the annexation of larger swaths of Ukrainian territory and the creation of a new state -- had a support of 20-25% in Russia without a large propaganda drive. If Putin had made the decision to follow through on this concept, support for "Novorossiya" would've likely surged well, well above 50% for some of the same reasons -- historic land, always belonged to us anyway, yada yada yada.

Similarly, if Putin decides to change his behavior he'll rely on the Kremlin media to put an appropriate spin on it to sell it back to the ordinary Russians and they'll approve of it.

Bluntly speaking, you don't understand the point of my argument.

Yes, these views are dictated from the top - but at this point, they're still genuine. It makes no difference that they've been inculcated over a long time by a compliant media. You just have to accept that is a fact of the game.

Once you accept that it is a fact of the game, and you understand that most Russians see the annexation of Crimea as legitimate, even if they only see it that way because of the propoganda machine, then you must also accept that trying some sort of Crimea for reduced sanctions swap is entirely untenable.

It's no good saying 'the average Russian has been woefully misled, so let's proceed with the policy that would work if they hadn't been'. That's fantasy politics.