Skip to comments."Insatiable" Idiocy from the Economist on What to Do About Russia
Posted on 04/21/2014 8:51:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
In "Insatiable" the Economist says "The cost of stopping the Russian bear now is highbut it will only get higher if the West does nothing".
Economist: Mr Putin has used the Ukrainian crisis to establish some dangerous precedents. He has claimed a duty to intervene to protect Russian-speakers wherever they are. He has staged a referendum and annexation, in defiance of Ukrainian law. And he has abrogated a commitment to respect Ukraines borders, which Russia signed in 1994 when Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons. Throughout, Mr Putin has shown that truth and the law are whatever happens to suit him at the time.
Mish: What a bunch of one-sided hypocritical nonsense. The US and EU have shown the that truth and the law are whatever happens to suit them at the time. The US has a drone policy that has killed or injured thousands of innocent victims, including children. The US had no pretext for invading Iraq but did so anyway. Warmongers now sabre-rattle Iran. The EU removed elected leaders in Greece and Italy and replaced them with technocrats. The US fomented events in Ukraine by helping overthrow Viktor Yanukovych. President Ronald Reagan promised Russia NATO would stay away from Eastern Europe. Apparently it's OK for citizens to overthrow the elected government in Ukraine in violation of the constitution, but it's not OK for citizens in Crimea to do the same. Russia did not take a bite out of Ukraine as depicted by the Economist. Rather, a section of Ukraine voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia. Once again, I am not proposing two wrongs make a right, rather I am proposing this is none of our business.
Economist: The West needs to show Mr Putin that further action will be costly. So far, its rhetoric has marched far ahead of its willingness to actonly adding to the aura of weakness. Not enough is at stake in Ukraine to risk war with a nuclear-armed Russia. And European voters will not put up with gas shortages, so an embargo is not plausible. But the West has other cards to play. One is military. NATO should announce that it will hold exercises in central and eastern Europe, strengthen air and cyber defences there and immediately send some troops, missiles and aircraft to the Baltics and Poland. NATO members should pledge to increase military spending.
Economist: Another card is sanctions, so far imposed on only a few people close to Mr Putin. It is time for a broad visa ban on powerful Russians and their families. France should cancel the sale of warships to Russia. A more devastating punishment would be to cut Russia off from dollars, euros and sterling. Such financial sanctions, like those that led Iran to negotiate over its nuclear programme, would deprive Russia of revenues from oil and gas exports, priced in dollars, and force it to draw on reserves to pay for most of its imports. They would be costly to the West, especially the City of London, but worth it. Impose them now, and give Mr Putin reason to pause. Do any less and the price next time will be even higher.
Not Our Battle
For starters, this is not our battle. Moreover, Europe is tired of our heavy meddling in it. (see European Countries Resent US Hectoring Tone).
If Crimea prefers to associate with Russia rather than the Ukraine, it is absolutely none of our business. Let the people involved, sort it out for themselves.
Warmongers Can't Think
France cutting off military sales to Russia would hurt France and help Russia - No one needs any more military junk. Pray tell, what does Russia need more warships for? Indeed, the idea is so silly, Russia should cancel the orders right now.
Putting missiles in Poland and Baltics is counterproductive. Precisely what problem would that address?
Here's the irony: The Economist says "Not enough is at stake in Ukraine to risk war with a nuclear-armed Russia." OK. Then what are the missiles for?
At best, the proposal is a waste of money all around. And who is going to pay for it?
Further proving that warmongers cannot think, The Economist notes "European voters will not put up with gas shortages, so an embargo is not plausible." Amusingly, the Economist then continues with proposals to cut Russia off from dollars, euros and sterling, as if Russia would not retaliate.
If extreme sanctions are put on Russia, then Russia will cut off all gas to Europe and likely default on all foreign denominated bonds.
How come idiots cannot see consequences of their proposals? Because they are idiots, that's why. No one wins from idiocy. Unfortunately, idiocy abounds.
Everyone was asking at the outset of Bosnia/Kosovo why Europe wasn’t leading on that if it was so all-fired important to them. They NEVER led. The US, so far as I know, probably still has a brigade-sized combat team there.
I’m all in favor of letting India worry about Pakistan and Afghanistan.
I also think that Europe needs skin in the game in the Ukraine.
So now Townhall is publishing anti-American tirades that might have been published on the Communist Party USA website and discussed seriously by the idiots at DUh? I hope most Freepers can recognize the true significance of this garbage. If this represents what most people believe, then this country is ruined, and we will soon be woefully outgunned by a new Sino/Soviet empire.
“Everyone was asking at the outset of Bosnia/Kosovo why Europe wasnt leading on that if it was so all-fired important to them.”
If Europe took the lead, how could Clinton have wagged the dog?
Our kids can volunteer when their kids are all dead.
The problem of letting India worry about pakistan and Afghanistan is that those two countries problem were built up with US money. Read what nixon did to India inthe 1971 indo-pak war when he ordered the USS enterprise into the bay of Bengal. Pakistangets and has got billion$ of dollars of militaryaid. Also the Afghanistan problem withthe Taliban started with the arming of mujahideen inthe 80s. Also the us looked the other way while oakis developed.nukes. so we can’t just tell.them “ok ww screwed up your neighborhoodx now go clean it up
Whoever that Mish is above is an abject idiot. Sounds like another in a long line of liberal stupidity.
We do not have any vaguely significant presence in either Pakistan or India.
India is THE emerging economy in the East. Pakistan can’t begin to compete with it. India is nuclear, has a strong army, navy, and air force, and it has a population that dwarfs most countries in the world.
Pakistan and Afghanistan both have countries which are ultimately unfriendly to islamofascists to the north and south in India and China.
India will not tolerate expansion or terror in their quadrant.
And the US can always do what it should have done from the beginning. Have no presence but play “shock and awe” as a reprisal only if they bother us in any way.
Mike Shedlock is a hot-handed debt-market analyst and observer who has strong opinions about, say, Fed operations and voices them without reservation.
Unfortunately, he's a bit of a wooden-gun libertarian as well --- or Paulbot, as we say around here.
"None of our business" ever stopped a war, or forestalled a war from starting. Engagement, OTOH, has at least done the latter.
And as for stopping wars ..... we did it twice in 30 years, the second time in the most honorably-undertaken war, for our part, in our history. Never mind that FDR backdoored us into it and let the Navy down (yes, I agree with the pro-Republican Revisionists). The good guys won, no questions.
Excepting Afghanistan under the Taliban, the smaller states of central Asia likewise have no love for the bomb-throwing hajjis.
The problem is the military aid the us gives and gave Pakistan. If that had not happened, India could take care of Pakistan easily.
Europe, always there when they need us.
When I was with the 101st years ago, we had a really good deputy CG killed by the Pakis. They’re liars, cheats, and double dealers for decades now. Ben Laden, Taliban sanctuaries, and government “blindness” all tell us that the Pakis aren’t worth funding for anything.
Leave them to the Indians.