The Next Huawei? US Threatens to Inflict 'Export Control' on Russia if It Invades Ukraine (stripes.com) 119
How exactly could Russia be deterred from invading Ukraine? The U.S. government is now "threatening to use a novel export control to damage strategic Russian industries, from artificial intelligence and quantum computing to civilian aerospace," according to Stars and Stripes (an editorially-independent newspaper for the American military). The newspaper cites administration officials as its source:
The administration may also decide to apply the control more broadly in a way that would potentially deprive Russian citizens of some smartphones, tablets and video game consoles, said the officials. Such moves would expand the reach of U.S. sanctions beyond financial targets to the deployment of a weapon used only once before — to nearly cripple the Chinese tech giant Huawei. The weapon, known as the foreign direct product rule, contributed to Huawei suffering its first-ever annual revenue drop, a stunning 30% last year, according to analysts.
The attraction of using the foreign direct product rule derives from the fact that virtually anything electronic these days includes semiconductors, the tiny components on which all modern technology depends, from smartphones to jets to quantum computers — and that there is hardly a semiconductor on the planet that is not made with U.S. tools or designed with U.S. software. And the administration could try to force companies in other countries to stop exporting these types of goods to Russia through this rule. "This is a slow strangulation by the U.S. government," technology analyst Dan Wang of Gavekal Dragonomics, a research firm in Shanghai, said of Huawei. The rule cut the firm's supply of needed microchips, which were made outside the United States but with U.S. software or tools.
Now officials in Washington say they are working with European and Asian allies to craft a version of the rule that would aim to stop flows of crucial components to industries for which Russian President Vladimir Putin has high ambitions, such as civil aviation, maritime and high technology.... But the effort could face head winds from American and European business interests that fear using export controls could lead to Russian retaliation in other spheres — and eventually cause foreign companies to seek to design U.S. technology out of their products. That's because the extension of the rule beyond a single company like Huawei to an entire country or entire sectors of a country is unprecedented.
"It's like a magic power — you can only use it so many times before it starts to degrade," said Robert D. Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a think tank. "Other countries will say, 'Oh, man, the U.S. has total control over us. We'd better find alternatives.'"
The newspaper also spoke to Paul Triolo, chief of technology policy at a global political risk research and consulting firm called Eurasia Group. His opinion "this would be weaponizing the U.S. semiconductor supply chain against an entire country."
And in more ways than one: Targeted use of the foreign direct product rule could be a blow to Russia's military, which relies on a type of chip called Elbrus that is designed in Russia but manufactured in Taiwan at a chip foundry called TSMC, according to Kostas Tigkos, an electronics expert at Janes Group, a U.K.-based provider of defense intelligence. If the United States barred TSMC from supplying those chips to Russia, as it successfully barred TSMC from supplying Huawei, that would have a "devastating effect," Tigkos said.
In a statement, TSMC said it "complies with all applicable laws and regulations" and that it has a "rigorous export control system in place ... to ensure export control restrictions are followed."Analysts say that Western multinational firms probably would comply with the export controls. All U.S. chipmakers include clauses in their contracts requiring customers to abide by U.S. export rules.
The article also explores a scenario where businesses in China step in to supply Russia (citing estimates from the Peterson Institute for International Economics that China already builds 70% of the computers and smartphones that Russia imports).
"If Chinese firms wound up supplying Russia in violation of the rule, that would leave Washington with a major diplomatic dilemma: whether to sanction them, even if they make ordinary — not military — goods."
The attraction of using the foreign direct product rule derives from the fact that virtually anything electronic these days includes semiconductors, the tiny components on which all modern technology depends, from smartphones to jets to quantum computers — and that there is hardly a semiconductor on the planet that is not made with U.S. tools or designed with U.S. software. And the administration could try to force companies in other countries to stop exporting these types of goods to Russia through this rule. "This is a slow strangulation by the U.S. government," technology analyst Dan Wang of Gavekal Dragonomics, a research firm in Shanghai, said of Huawei. The rule cut the firm's supply of needed microchips, which were made outside the United States but with U.S. software or tools.
Now officials in Washington say they are working with European and Asian allies to craft a version of the rule that would aim to stop flows of crucial components to industries for which Russian President Vladimir Putin has high ambitions, such as civil aviation, maritime and high technology.... But the effort could face head winds from American and European business interests that fear using export controls could lead to Russian retaliation in other spheres — and eventually cause foreign companies to seek to design U.S. technology out of their products. That's because the extension of the rule beyond a single company like Huawei to an entire country or entire sectors of a country is unprecedented.
"It's like a magic power — you can only use it so many times before it starts to degrade," said Robert D. Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a think tank. "Other countries will say, 'Oh, man, the U.S. has total control over us. We'd better find alternatives.'"
The newspaper also spoke to Paul Triolo, chief of technology policy at a global political risk research and consulting firm called Eurasia Group. His opinion "this would be weaponizing the U.S. semiconductor supply chain against an entire country."
And in more ways than one: Targeted use of the foreign direct product rule could be a blow to Russia's military, which relies on a type of chip called Elbrus that is designed in Russia but manufactured in Taiwan at a chip foundry called TSMC, according to Kostas Tigkos, an electronics expert at Janes Group, a U.K.-based provider of defense intelligence. If the United States barred TSMC from supplying those chips to Russia, as it successfully barred TSMC from supplying Huawei, that would have a "devastating effect," Tigkos said.
In a statement, TSMC said it "complies with all applicable laws and regulations" and that it has a "rigorous export control system in place ... to ensure export control restrictions are followed."Analysts say that Western multinational firms probably would comply with the export controls. All U.S. chipmakers include clauses in their contracts requiring customers to abide by U.S. export rules.
The article also explores a scenario where businesses in China step in to supply Russia (citing estimates from the Peterson Institute for International Economics that China already builds 70% of the computers and smartphones that Russia imports).
"If Chinese firms wound up supplying Russia in violation of the rule, that would leave Washington with a major diplomatic dilemma: whether to sanction them, even if they make ordinary — not military — goods."
again (Score:5, Insightful)
...if it invades Ukraine, *again*.
Re:again (Score:4, Interesting)
Democracy is just plain dying globally and locally. There's just too many people who no longer believe in democracy. You'd be amazed how many people I talk to you online and offline who don't believe it should be easy to vote in America. They don't understand that it's a people they don't like can't easily vote that's not a democracy, it's just oligarchy with more steps.
Furthermore, they don't understand that those laws that make it hard to vote will be used against them if and when they disagree with the people in power.
Re:again (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's more of a when at this point. The Trump administration put us in such a weak position with regards to Russia that they can easily invade the Ukraine, put up with the sanctions for a little bit while using Bitcoin and cryptocurrency to launder money and while Europe and Asia by gas under the table, and then it all blow over. I'm guessing they're waiting until winter is over both because it's easier to fight a war when it's not winter and because they'll have gotten there years worth of sales on gas. By the time the next winter comes along we'll have moved on and lifted the sanctions quietly. Democracy is just plain dying globally and locally. There's just too many people who no longer believe in democracy. You'd be amazed how many people I talk to you online and offline who don't believe it should be easy to vote in America. They don't understand that it's a people they don't like can't easily vote that's not a democracy, it's just oligarchy with more steps. Furthermore, they don't understand that those laws that make it hard to vote will be used against them if and when they disagree with the people in power.
If Russia wants to overrun Ukraine they had better do it quickly. They don't have the logistical base to supply a major offensive for any length of time. Any sanctions on military critical chips and high tech components they can't build themselves is going to hit them in two places. Firstly their ability to sustain any war in the Ukraine after their munitions stockpiles run out and secondly it will devastate their arms sales since such a shortage would brick enormous amounts of military hardware they have sold to other countries. Finally there is hardly any country which would choose Russia when given the choice of trading with Russia or trading with the west and that includes China. Ukraine doesn't have to win, Ukraine just has to bog the Russians down long enough for their oversized force, driven by an undersized military logistical system and reliant on imported chips for high tech weapons to run out of ammo and supplies. Then there is the ever present danger that some helicopter landing-pad sized cap wearing Russian general with a chest covered in shiny medals sends some shells over the wrong border and drags NATO into the shooting war.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the Russians take the winter much into account when it comes to fighting wars (the French and the German will sadly support this claim). They're doing fine in the cold, they thank you very much. In other news, they threaten with nukes anyone that dares question their annexation of Crimea, while the US threatens to take their Playstations away if they invade Ukraine (again).
A referendum was used to solidify the Crimean annexation. It was used to take the Brits out of the EU. I won't be surprise
Re: (Score:2)
Winter is key. Germany will freeze to death without Russian gas so there won't be any complaints from them (or NATO) when Russia invades. That's why this is happening now.
Re:again (Score:4, Insightful)
Winter is also key because Russian/Ukranian springs are extremely muddy, which makes rapid deployment of armored forces and logistics very difficult.
It's not so much the cold (Score:2)
Nobody's gonna "leave the union" in the states. What they're trying to do is split California so the corporatists can get 2 more Senate Seats.
Re: (Score:2)
Many Western democracies were weak to start with, and it didn't take much for Russia to interfere with them. The UK is just as bad, a relatively small push from Russia got us into brexit and we will probably never recover from it. Next step is the UK breaking up into separate countries again.
The ROI for the Internet Research Agency must be incredible.
It's mostly the UK and US (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the opposite of that, parliament has too much power. Once someone like Johnson gets in there is very little anyone can do to limit the damage.
Re: (Score:1)
The Trump administration put us in such a weak position with regards to Russia that they can easily invade the Ukraine, put up with the sanctions for a little bit while using Bitcoin and cryptocurrency to launder money and while Europe and Asia by gas under the table, and then it all blow over
It's odd, then, that they waited for Biden to be president to possible do this.
Re:again (Score:4, Insightful)
It's odd, then, that they waited for Biden to be president to possible do this.
Why odd? Some of the Russian connections to Trump were Democrat lies, however he was very clearly pro Putin and also pro weakening American security commitments in Europe. As long as Trump was in power it was better not to embarrass him and, after Trump attempted to blackmail Ukraine by blocking military aid [wikipedia.org], even if Trump wasn't a Russian asset, it was pretty clear to Putin that he could safely and slowly prepare for an invasion without expecting full commitment against him.
Biden may be crap too, but he's still more likely to take action against Putin than Trump, so Putin's under clear pressure to get some profit out of it all at this stage even if that's just concessions due to diplomatic pressure.
Re:again (Score:5, Informative)
Trump was harder on Russia than any President in 20+ years.
He did have a raging boner for Pootin, we all know that...
Re: (Score:1)
Without this sentiment the political capital could have existed to exploit this and begin strengthening a relationship with Russia in unified opposition to the growing threat of China. Russia may not be on the same page as us on issues of policy and freedom in its domestic policies but Putin is a boy scout compared with that genocidal maniac Xi Jinping.
Instead
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is not ok with arming Ukraine either, this is too close to Moscow for them. If shit hits the f
Re: (Score:1)
Bully (Score:2)
US is such a disgusting bully.
Only one problem with this plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Only one problem with this plan (Score:1)
We Germanen very clever. Very cuul. We de funfitg pillar of Putkin. We de fourth reich!
Nukular bad, Putler gud!
Re: (Score:2)
How would US export controls affect Europe? Europe buys gas in Euros. One of the reasons for creating the Euro was to give Europe protection from this kind of action by the US, since paying in USD means the US has some jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
By retaliating against USA's allies.
Europe buys gas in Euros. One of the reasons for creating the Euro was to give Europe protection from this kind of action by the US, since paying in USD means the US has some jurisdiction.
Doesn't matter what currency you use to buy natural gas if the producer wont sell it to you.
Re: Only one problem with this plan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misunderstood. The retaliation is by Russia, not Europe, ie cutting Europe off from its natgas supply.
Re: Only one problem with this plan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think Russia would retaliate against the EU for something that the US did?
Re: (Score:2)
You think Russia would retaliate against the EU for something that the US did?
They can try, Russia would have no leverage, but they can try ....
Re: (Score:2)
Europe gets about a third of its natgas and oil from Russia. That's literally powerful leverage.
Re: (Score:3)
They can try, Russia would have no leverage, but they can try ....
Europe gets about a third of its natgas and oil from Russia. That's literally powerful leverage.
More like 26%, not 33% and that is extremely over hyped leverage. Funnily enough, other than war, it also seems to be Russia's only leverage. Russia can cut off gas to the EU, it would be a major irritant to the EU but it would not be a world ending cataclysm. Russia is not the only country on the planet selling gas. For Russia it would represent the loss of most of their military budget. The idea that cutting off gas sales is some kind of catastrophe for the EU is about as amusing as the Brexiteer's idea t
Re: (Score:2)
You think Russia would retaliate against the EU for something that the US did?
One of the main differences this time which is meant to make sanctions effective is that they are being agreed by all the NATO countries. This is not just supposed to be a US action.
Re: Only one problem with this plan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not saying it is impossible. A firm in another country could order the ch
Re: Only one problem with this plan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Europe should build more LNG ports, so gas can be imported from America or Qatar.
Gas in Europe: $80 / MWh
Gas in America: $15 / MWh
Re: (Score:2)
$15+$80 shipping. Great idea, bravo.
Re: (Score:2)
$15+$80 shipping. Great idea, bravo.
Shipping costs for LNG, including cooling and rewarming the gas, are about $10 per MWh.
So American gas could be delivered to Europe for about $25/MWh, which is a third of the European price.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe should make weaning itself off gas a priority.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe should make weaning itself off gas a priority.
Germany is still burning lignite. It will be a while before they start shutting down gas turbines.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe needs natural gas from Russia more than Russia needs imports from the West.
So what, appeasement for economic reasons? Putin is acting like a 1930s dictator and we know where that leads.
Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Europe and Russia could really do with working out a way to be friends. Ideally, in the long run, Russia should be able to join the EU; it's in everybody's interest and there's lots more people in the EU who have friendly histories with Russia, however building on that needs trust and the fact that energy is clearly seen as a weapon is hardly the way to bu
Re: (Score:3)
Europe needs natural gas from Russia more than Russia needs imports from the West.
Russia needs the revenues from gas sales to Europe. Most of that army amassed on the Ukrainian border was paid for with money from gas sales to Europe. However, Europe can afford to buy more expensive gas from sources other than Russia. They won't like it but they can afford it. In a couple of decades Europe won't need Russian gas. This scares Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
US not Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be kind of foolish and short sighted for Europe to choose cheap gas in the short term over preventing a restored Soviet Union in the long term though; considering how much damage Russia did to Europe the last time, how long it took to dislodge them, and how expensive it was to fix the damage Russia did... damage which is still not undone and, in the case of a certain part of Ukraine, won't be undone for literally thousands of years. It's not like we haven't seen this playbook in action already in the
They did that when they threatened Crimea (Score:2)
How did that work out.
A move to force China to really annex Taiwan (Score:1)
"Targeted use of the foreign direct product rule could be a blow to Russia's military, which relies on a type of chip called Elbrus that is designed in Russia but manufactured in Taiwan at a chip foundry called TSMC.."
"The article also explores a scenario where businesses in China step in to supply Russia.."
So it's war with two countries then?
Re: (Score:2)
Europe/USA distracted at war with Russia would be a good time for China to invade Taiwan ... which seems to me to be getting close to World War III.
China will not want to start until the winter olympics are ended in about a month's time.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the risk of China invading Taiwan is fairly overstated in all honesty. Russia and China differ in a key way; much of China's military apparatus exists to keep the Chinese themselves in check, whilst the Russians are quite happy to drink Putin's Kool Aid without threat of death.
So for China, foreign excursions are a significantly more risky proposition, and there reaches a point where they simply overextend and lose what they have. China is also on the verge of a financial crisis, and rising interest
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps, China has been just as expansionist in the past. They just don't let anyone have relations with them if they talk about it. They claim the people of a place are racially chinese, they begin the slow creep in.. then when they seize control they claim to be quelling dissidents and that the territory was always part of China. They play the long g
Re: (Score:2)
The newspaper does not know what they are talking about. Military Elbrus CPUs as used in their military aircraft like the Su-57 are produced in Russia proper in 90nm process at Mikron. The Elbrus processors manufactured at TSMC in China at 16nm are used in civilian government servers like the tax revenue service. Not the military. So while this would cripple their effort to transition to Elbrus on civilian server side applications, think civilian government and private banks, it would make no difference for
Re: (Score:2)
I will also add that the sales volumes of these Elbrus chips are so small they can easily store enough chips for a couple years time with available purchase orders.
This is not like Huawei who sold millions of devices annually. If you look at it the US sanctions had little impact on Huawei backend devices with their market share even growing slightly. It did not impact the Chinese 5G rollout at all. Precisely for this reason they have enough product in stock for years of production. What Huawei had to do was
Problematic in the long run... (Score:1)
This will push Russia and China to cooperate and build their own parallel semiconductor industry to avoid US sanctions and still be competitive.
Will just fragment the market and be problematic for standardization. I see that the US clearly wants to leverage these types of sanctions in geopolitics, but the long-term effect on the industry will be 1 step forward and 2 steps back.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Problematic in the long run... (Score:2)
Sanction is a Synonym to Nothing (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Notice that we don't give a shit about the sanctions imposed on us?
Don't think for one minute that Russia will give a shit about sanctions imposed on them either.
Weirdest simile ever (Score:4, Insightful)
"It's like a magic power — you can only use it so many times before it starts to degrade," said Robert D. Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a think tank.
Weirdest simile ever.
"Hmm... how to describe something that degrades when repeatedly used? Surely there is nothing in our mundane physical world which matches such a description. To the eldritch grimoires!"
I think I hear Vlad quaking in his boots (Score:2)
...haven't he and his cronies largely been under sanction for the better part of a decade now?
Clearly, it's having a CRUSHING effect.
It is already done. In part. (Score:3)
I heard a SU-35 fighter deal between Russia and Egypt failed because the Russians were unable to manufacture the radars for lack of electronic components. And the Russians are already reacting to be less dependent on western electronics.
Also, many EU states are very dependent on Russian gas so i don't expect them to do much. The French did the plan Messmer to avoid precisely this kind of situations but it is only France. And the Europeans are not so keen on following the U..S on sanctions. That why they sometimes develop ITAR free aerospace products. The ITAR are a set of rules restricting the use and exportation of US made components.
Big Daddy (Score:2)
Big Daddy is not as big as he thinks he is. All these sanction plans will fail, just as they did with previous Russian invasions. Ukraine is toast. Time to move on and work on letting green theology destroy the rest of the world.
Nuke danger (Score:2)
Russia is a nuclear armed state. Ukraine used to be, but we made them give up nukes back in 1994. Good lesson for other countries to hodl nukes. Every option the west has involves risk of all-out nuclear war. To me it seems the only solution against any nuclear armed state is special operations to topple the government without triggering nuclear war which is extremely tricky. I mean with any sufficiently mad leader (not Putin, I think), even economic sanctions may be a trigger.
Just Another Hans Blix (Score:1)
I'm reminded of "Team America: World Police" where Hans Blix meets Kim Jong Il:
Hans Blix: "...or else.
Kim Jong Il: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.”
The internet could be an export under this law (Score:2)
i am very happy about this bit (Score:1)
and that there is hardly a semiconductor on the planet that is not made with U.S. tools or designed with U.S. software.
In the world where the world free market economy is threatened by China's state capitalism pretending to be a "free market economy", this is a rare glimpse of good news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Minsk Accord? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or how about Russia stops invading it's neighbours and annexing their territory? How about that?
You clearly don't know anything about history. Every time you appease an imperialist dictator like Putin they just take more, and more, and more.
This has to stop. Europe is stable. Europe is happy. Europe is prosperous. The fact Russia keeps fucking itself up by electing and accepting corrupt oligarchs is their problem to be kept in their borders. They don't get to just harass the rest of Europe just because they're a bunch of fucking idiots. They don't get to blame their neighbours for daring to want to be sovereign independent nations.
The only accord the West fucked up with was the nuclear arms control treaty that we convinced Ukraine to agree to when it became independent from the USSR and said it would eliminate it's nuclear weapons in return for a guarantee neither the west nor Russia would threaten it's territorial integrity. How well did that go? Any agreement with Russia, any appeasement of Russia, is just an invitation for Putin to push further and further into Europe and pursue his wet dream of rebuilding the failed USSR. And that's a hard pass from everyone in Europe who lived under the USSR - he doesn't get impose his pathetic ideas on millions of people, and the only reason you don't agree is because you're not in the fucking firing line.
Re: Minsk Accord? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly historicly im pretty sure USA f.ed up more countries than Russia.
You might just about be right, but I think you would find there isn't as big a difference as you think on this, unless for some reason you want to exclude the countries f.ed up by the USSR which was pretty much dominated by Russia. Remember, Russia was one of the great 19th c. powers and has messed around with countries all over Asia as well as the USSR messing around, together with and in opposition to the Americans in South America. Stalin's actions in the Yalta conference [wikipedia.org] preparing for the defeat of hi
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the day if you want to take the position that fighting is bad and destructive and there was too much collateral damage... well that is one thing but it is a fair bet that any other power in the place of the US would ha
Re:Minsk Accord? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about the US stop conducting illegal war after illegal war under international law, and actually start following their own Constitution. Other countries see the US, and are simply following US footsteps. US bullshit ideas regarding anticipatory defense, etc. allows any other country to claim the same.
I'm not very sympathetic when I see Americans say "oh! bad country did X so we can do X too!".
I'm also not very sympathetic when I see bad countries say "oh! The US did X so we can do X too!".
Re: (Score:1)
Right there weren't any illegal wars in the Middle East, e.g. in Iraq, that caused massive humanitarian crisis causing massive waves of millions of refugees to go knocking on Europe's doors.
Re: (Score:2)
The US conducts an illegal war, then sets up a corrupt puppet government that is pro-US, allowing the US to set up military bases all over, stating that the country is voluntarily allowing the US to place military assets in their country. That's the normal course of US foreign policy.
Re: (Score:3)
The US conducts an illegal war, then sets up a corrupt puppet government that is pro-US, allowing the US to set up military bases all over, stating that the country is voluntarily allowing the US to place military assets in their country. That's the normal course of US foreign policy.
Russia conducts an illegal war, then sets up a corrupt puppet government that is pro-Russian, allowing Russia set up military bases all over, stating that the country is voluntarily allowing Russia to place military assets in their country. That's the normal course of Russian foreign policy.
You need to find a better way argument than that. What you just described is standard practice followed by every great power since the bronze age. You might as well be complaining that water is wet.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Feel free to swap out any major power you please and finally get the point. There is no major power on Earth which are good guys in regards to how they play chess on the global stage and any claim otherwise is propaganda. The spreading of the idea the US is somehow especially evil and that everyone else are good guys just trying to get along without the
Re: (Score:2)
Like in Syria? You're telling me that one is legal?
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has done far less invading than the US
The USSR was, via the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact [wikipedia.org], Nazi Germany's main ally in invading Europe. Since then they have invaded Afghanistan, Hungary, the Czech Republic and then, as Russia, Georgia and Crimea. That's hardly "far less" unless you do semantic chopping and changing to pretend Russia and the USSR have nothing to do with each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that not far less than the 50+ illegal invasions that the US has carried out in the same time?
To get to 50 "invasions" you have to count a whole load of informal small military actions that couldn't reasonably be called an "invasion". E.g. recent action by Putin in Venezuela and Syria (which I wouldn't count because he was invited by the effective, if not legal, governments in each case). Counting from the wikipedia page of invasions [wikipedia.org] I get 7 by Russia/USSR compared to 11 by the USA. That's not a major difference.
And yes, of course I am aware that like the US they started WWII as Germany's friend but got upset when Germany declared war on them at the same time as Germany declared war on the US.
"like"? really?? You are comparing continued trading whilst clearly providing much mo
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't even remotely accurate. Is this really what people are spreading overseas? There is a political faction that gains capital by exploiting old wounds and they are continuously manufacturing the idea there is a conti
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No, the US and Russia are not different.
"When elephants fight the grass suffers" - you are lots right that they are very similar. Both big nations made up of people. Both countries with huge areas of people far from any other country who almost never see the "foreign". Both somewhat careless of the little nations they accidentally walk over. Both tend to claim strategic rights over areas outside their own country. However, if you don't see that there are differences - in terms of internal freedom of speech, in terms of acts like creating the Ma
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has done far less invading than the US who have averaged an invasion every other year since WWII so that is particularly dumb.
Not a fan of US foreign policy, but they're not the ones repeatedly invading and annexing parts of other countries.
Given the way that the US enforces its sphere of influence on its neighbours it is hard to criticise Russia for its actions especially given that it was the US that encouraged an anti Russian revolution in a country with a pro-Russian President and a 50% ethnically Russian population.
Sure the US was poking around as usual but it was Ukrainians who had a revolution to kick out a horribly corrupt pro-Russian President.
you were living in Costa Rica and Russia led a coup and you became seriously threatened with your neighbours being dragged out into the street and killed - would you expect the US to help you?
You mean all the crap that Russia pulled in Crimea and Donetsk? Pre-invasion the only real violence was by Yanukovych against the protesters.
That is how half of Ukraine feels. We could ask that Ukraine returns to democracy and reinstates the democratically elected President
Are you longing for the President who was rigging votes or the Crimean template where elections are held at virtual gunpo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> Russia has no choice but to defend the Russian ...
> people
>
> you would demand your country does for you what
> Russia expects to do for their people
Oh, horseshit. I'm ethnically Irish (Protestant... my family came from the north that is part of the UK.). If I get beat up on the streets or dragged out of my home... even if it is by the LAPD or some other agent of the state... the UK has no obligation or business to invade the US to "protect" me. And they would be all kinds of in the wrong
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Your hypothetical invasion of Ulster (I presume you mean the counties of Ulster which are part of the UK north.) by the south would be an invasion the United Kingdom's territory; as was the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. That would be an attack on a sovereign nation and a military response would be appropriate. The parallel to the Russia/Ukraine situation would be if Ukraine invaded Russia which, to my knowledge, has not happened.
And no, I don't consider myself Irish, ancestry notwithstanding
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, Russia played the role of instigator and let the Vietnamese do their dying for them while the US was left doing the dying.
Re:Minsk Accord? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, part of the accord is the withdrawl of all foreign troops but Russia claims it doesn't have any in there, so isn't bound by the accords.
The deal set out a series of military and political steps that remain unimplemented. A major blockage has been Russia's insistence that it is not a party to the conflict and therefore is not bound by its terms. Point 10, for example, calls for the withdrawal of all foreign armed formations and military equipment from the two disputed regions, Donetsk and Luhansk: Ukraine says this refers to forces from Russia, but Moscow denies it has any there.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreements-ukraine-conflict-2021-12-06/ [reuters.com]
So, no. Fuck Putin for invading and annexing territory from Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine then trying for a 2nd and 3rd bite from Ukraine and people saying Ukraine should just take it.
Re: (Score:2)
Transnistria has been independent since 1992. Roughly the same time South Ossetia and Abkhazia split from Georgia. Putin wasn't even in power back then.
These were all autonomous regions which declared their own independence when the USSR broke up.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be easier to get Russia to simply comply with the Budapest Memorandum [wikipedia.org] and this would not be an issue? It is Russia that is making this a problem not Russia.
Or does invading and occupying parts of a sovereign nation not count for anything when it comes to hostilities?
Re:Minsk Accord? (Score:4, Funny)
It is Russia that is making this a problem not Russia.
Oh that's good, I thought it was Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya got me. Apparently my dyslexia took over in that moment.
At least we know who the problem maker is. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
t's funny how Russia decided to invade Ukraine in 2014, and appears to be gearing up to do so again in 2022, but you claim the 2016-2020 period is where America became "pro Russia."
Perhaps during that era our President was "pro Russia" in the sense of telling them "I want what's best for Russia in the long term, and for that to happen you have to behave and stop invading your neighbors, Mr. Putin, as it would be very bad for Russia's future indeed if you were to not behave."
Trump had/has plenty of flaws, bu
Um... Obama put a damper on that (Score:2)
Basically, Biden saber rattles, this puts the American negotiators in a better position, because they can go to their Russian counterparts and say "Give us some concessions so we can get Biden to calm down". Nobody wants war between big powers, as that wrecks everybody's stuff (and Russia would lose, ending in Putin's execution or MAD, assuming those nukes work, which given that they're not suppose
Re: (Score:1)
Point is, Biden is SUPPOSED to take a hardline stance. If he doesn't then he's given ground to the other side.
Exactly my point - Obama was soft, Biden is soft. There's no hardline stance being given, just a bunch of wishy washy BS about "as long as it's not too big of an incursion, we probably won't really do much, but we really REALLY mean it." The only one who dared stand up to Putin in the slightest was Trump. Trump did many things poorly and is a boorish excuse for a man, but at least Russia mostly b
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler invaded many European countries anyway.