broadsword
Brigadier
Link not working for me.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Link not working for me.
Regression back to Dark ages it seems
Oops, didn't work...damn it.
People walking on the Red Square in Moscow. © AFP / Natalia Kolesnikova
The harsh sanctions imposed on Russia by the West over the conflict in Ukraine have so far been unable to deliver the desired result, The Economist magazine has acknowledged, adding that the strategy has “flaws.”
“Worryingly, so far the sanctions war is not going as well as expected,” the British publication in an article on Thursday, insisting that the effectiveness of economic restrictions on Moscow “is key to the outcome of the Ukraine war.”
“Russia’s GDP will shrink by 6% in 2022, reckons the IMF, much less than the 15% drop many expected in March... Energy sales will generate a current-account surplus of $265 billion this year, the world’s second-largest after China. After a crunch, Russia’s financial system has stabilized and the country is finding new suppliers for some imports, including China,” it pointed out.
At the same time, the energy crisis, which has been provoked by the sanctions war, “may trigger a recession” in Europe, where gas prices spiked by another 20% this week, according to the British magazine.
This all means that the expected “knockout blow [from restricting Russia] has not materialized,” The Economist said.
“The unipolar moment of the 1990s, when America’s supremacy was uncontested, is long gone, and the West’s appetite to use military force has waned since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” it acknowledged.
Economic restrictions “seemed” to be the new tool that would allow the US, EU and its allies to project their power globally, but the conflict in Ukraine has revealed that “the sanctions weapon has flaws,” it said.
One of those flaws is “the time lag,” the magazine continued. For example, “blocking [Russia’s] access to tech the West monopolizes takes years to bite,” it added.
The Economist suggested that isolation from Western markets could only “cause havoc in Russia… on a three- to five-year horizon.”
“The biggest flaw [of sanctions] is that full or partial embargoes are not being enforced by over 100 countries with 40% of world GDP,” the outlet insisted. “A globalized economy is good at adapting to shocks and opportunities, particularly as most countries have no desire to enforce Western policy.”
With economic curbs failing to cripple the Russian economy, one should “discard any illusions that sanctions offer the West a cheap and asymmetric way to confront China” if it decides to use force against Taiwan, The Economist warned.
Sanctions war isn’t going as planned – The Economist
The expected knockout blow from anti-Russia restrictions “has not materialized,” the UK magazine reports
People walking on the Red Square in Moscow. © AFP / Natalia Kolesnikova
The harsh sanctions imposed on Russia by the West over the conflict in Ukraine have so far been unable to deliver the desired result, The Economist magazine has acknowledged, adding that the strategy has “flaws.”
“Worryingly, so far the sanctions war is not going as well as expected,” the British publication in an article on Thursday, insisting that the effectiveness of economic restrictions on Moscow “is key to the outcome of the Ukraine war.”
“Russia’s GDP will shrink by 6% in 2022, reckons the IMF, much less than the 15% drop many expected in March... Energy sales will generate a current-account surplus of $265 billion this year, the world’s second-largest after China. After a crunch, Russia’s financial system has stabilized and the country is finding new suppliers for some imports, including China,” it pointed out.
At the same time, the energy crisis, which has been provoked by the sanctions war, “may trigger a recession” in Europe, where gas prices spiked by another 20% this week, according to the British magazine.
This all means that the expected “knockout blow [from restricting Russia] has not materialized,” The Economist said.
“The unipolar moment of the 1990s, when America’s supremacy was uncontested, is long gone, and the West’s appetite to use military force has waned since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” it acknowledged.
Economic restrictions “seemed” to be the new tool that would allow the US, EU and its allies to project their power globally, but the conflict in Ukraine has revealed that “the sanctions weapon has flaws,” it said.
One of those flaws is “the time lag,” the magazine continued. For example, “blocking [Russia’s] access to tech the West monopolizes takes years to bite,” it added.
The Economist suggested that isolation from Western markets could only “cause havoc in Russia… on a three- to five-year horizon.”
“The biggest flaw [of sanctions] is that full or partial embargoes are not being enforced by over 100 countries with 40% of world GDP,” the outlet insisted. “A globalized economy is good at adapting to shocks and opportunities, particularly as most countries have no desire to enforce Western policy.”
With economic curbs failing to cripple the Russian economy, one should “discard any illusions that sanctions offer the West a cheap and asymmetric way to confront China” if it decides to use force against Taiwan, The Economist warned.
Well yeah, Russia is a major economy with control over a lot of goods, and they have many friends.Oops, didn't work...damn it.
Sanctions war isn’t going as planned – The Economist
The expected knockout blow from anti-Russia restrictions “has not materialized,” the UK magazine reports
People walking on the Red Square in Moscow. © AFP / Natalia Kolesnikova
The harsh sanctions imposed on Russia by the West over the conflict in Ukraine have so far been unable to deliver the desired result, The Economist magazine has acknowledged, adding that the strategy has “flaws.”
“Worryingly, so far the sanctions war is not going as well as expected,” the British publication in an article on Thursday, insisting that the effectiveness of economic restrictions on Moscow “is key to the outcome of the Ukraine war.”
“Russia’s GDP will shrink by 6% in 2022, reckons the IMF, much less than the 15% drop many expected in March... Energy sales will generate a current-account surplus of $265 billion this year, the world’s second-largest after China. After a crunch, Russia’s financial system has stabilized and the country is finding new suppliers for some imports, including China,” it pointed out.
At the same time, the energy crisis, which has been provoked by the sanctions war, “may trigger a recession” in Europe, where gas prices spiked by another 20% this week, according to the British magazine.
This all means that the expected “knockout blow [from restricting Russia] has not materialized,” The Economist said.
“The unipolar moment of the 1990s, when America’s supremacy was uncontested, is long gone, and the West’s appetite to use military force has waned since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” it acknowledged.
Economic restrictions “seemed” to be the new tool that would allow the US, EU and its allies to project their power globally, but the conflict in Ukraine has revealed that “the sanctions weapon has flaws,” it said.
One of those flaws is “the time lag,” the magazine continued. For example, “blocking [Russia’s] access to tech the West monopolizes takes years to bite,” it added.
The Economist suggested that isolation from Western markets could only “cause havoc in Russia… on a three- to five-year horizon.”
“The biggest flaw [of sanctions] is that full or partial embargoes are not being enforced by over 100 countries with 40% of world GDP,” the outlet insisted. “A globalized economy is good at adapting to shocks and opportunities, particularly as most countries have no desire to enforce Western policy.”
With economic curbs failing to cripple the Russian economy, one should “discard any illusions that sanctions offer the West a cheap and asymmetric way to confront China” if it decides to use force against Taiwan, The Economist warned.
The move against Ukraine was naked aggression but at the same time, the west has also committed aggression earlier in 2014, and Ukraine has handled the issue of separatism poorly, by using force against civilian targets. Invasion is never really a morally good choice but what Ukraine is doing isn't acceptable either. They should have followed a similar model as how China negotiates with separatist elements, seek dialogue instead of shelling cities. Even if Ukraine had wanted an armed reunification (which is fully within Kiev's rights), it is one thing to do AR by hitting military targets and rebel leaders, it's another to indiscriminately shell cities with no military value.
Most of the world's nations didn't step up against US when they invade Iraq and Afghanistan with even weaker justification than Russia in Ukraine. So they'll ostentibly not step up against Russia either.
Very long time if it’s for actual extraction. Because those sites are not developed and Afghanistan has really next to nothing to supply the site. So probably just about everything required will need to be imported.