Lurkers should be reminded about a recalcitrant position despite all evidence to the contrary imo.
Shock doctrine comes for Ukraine
The CEPR team thus seems to imagine a Ukrainian society and economy adjusting to the shock of the war, assisted by high tech and NGOs, but with the Ukrainian state itself pruned back as far as possible. And this vision becomes explicit when it comes to the question of deregulation.
⌠For example, the government dramatically loosened labour market regulations (e.g. firms can fire workers relatively easily and unilaterally suspend elements of labour contracts; workers who would like to quit do not need to give advance notice to their employers). This approach should be applied to other areas. Land regulation, access to electricity, and other infrastructure should be streamlined to allow easier reallocation for firms. ⌠Perhaps, the government can appoint a high-level official (e.g. âderegulation chiefâ) to coordinate and push for deregulation.
Another possibility is that the people who feel theyâre victims of constant trolling are actually willing participants. In the end maybe they are victims, but whether theyâre innocent or not is a whole other question.
Afghanistan shared 1300+ mi border with the ussr
The rest is dumb af too but that is especially lol
1 Like
If it comes to that, at that point Putin is going to have to make some decision about what Russia and he personally still have to lose versus what they have to gain. And I think, barring leadership changes in key NATO countries, the decision will be clear that they have a lot more than Crimea to lose. I think Putin can actually keep Ukraine out of NATO indefinitely as long as someone like Orban/Trump are leading NATO countries.
My guess is Putin would do anything to dig in and stall until Republicans are back in power in the USA and take his chances then (talking 2024 not just the legislature). I would bet against Russia using nukes while there is still a President Biden to respond and to coordinate a unified response among NATO allies.
My biggest hangup is that if we are put to the test and Russia does fire a tactical nuke in the Ukraine I absolutely do not support escalating into a direct shooting war with the Russian military. Makes me very uneasy about the current situation.
4 Likes
Putin remains a master strategist.
Why?
Ukraine being in or out of NATO has nothing to do with port access. Nothing in your post is about how Ukraine being in NATO harms Russia, only that it hinders Russia from conquering Ukraine and forces them to treat it as a sovereign nation. Indeed, none of your arguments make a lick of sense unless you buy into Putinâs argument that Ukraine is not a sovereign nation but is instead a modern fiction that he has the right to undo via genocide.
Yeah like the multiple genocides Russia committed there
This is only true if Ukraine being in or out of NATO has no correlation to Russia controlling Crimea and, thus, Sevastopol.
2 Likes
Itâs orders of magnitude more important because it makes them EASIER TO CONQUER.
Leaving that bit out is at least a tad disingenuous.
1 Like
rofl yeah man, that noted Russian propaganda outlet, uh, the Council of Foreign Relations
2 Likes
You using it that way is the apologia, not the source.
If you used Wikipedia to argue Russiaâs bullshit interests thatâd be apologia too
1 Like
OK, do you think these are legitimate arguments that deserve equal consideration from fair-minded people, or just that they are examples of the bullshit Russia puts forth in service of genocide and conquest?
1 Like
These arenât arguments. Nothing there justifies a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
2 Likes
But arguments for why Ukraine is the juiciest target for conquest are not really an explanation for why this time, for some reason, is the first time that any nuclear super power will use nukes in a proxy war. Post-Soviet Russia existed without Sevastopol for quite a bit longer than it has had control of it, and Russia was fine for all of that time. Does Russia want Sevastopol? Sure, that much is obvious. But itâs not like their economy or anything else in Russia depends on owning it. As such, there is no reason to believe that the territory seized in 2014 is any more likely to generate a nuclear backlash than any other lines that Putin has bandied about.
I didnât read that as an argument for why Ukraine is the juiciest target. I read that as an argument for why Russia has an emotional interest in Ukraine that isnât the same as US-Vietnam or USSR-Afghanistan. This isnât a proxy war on the Russian side. Thereâs a clear emotional angle to how Russia thinks about Ukraine. This isnât just a pretext for Putin warmongering. The war probably continues even if Putin dies because his desire wasnât born out of nothing.
The Russian Black Sea Fleet has been based on Sevastapol since the fall of the Soviet Union. Until superseded by the invasion of Crimea, there was a lease agreement for Russia to have a base in Sevastopol. Mot quite the permanent lease that the US has for Guantanamo in Cuba, but with automatic renewal.
Some Russian politicians clamoring to take Sevastopol in the 1990s was one reason that Ukraine tried to develop closer ties with NATO.
1 Like
The argument that Russia wonât use nukes because they (or the Soviet Union) havenât in the past is the same as the argument that Republicans wonât let the US default in a debt ceiling showdown because they havenât in the past. The argument that they will in both cases is that the motives of today are different from the past.