Trumpettes! Your President needs you!

@4meAndyou The sanctions were imposed because of the novichok attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the UK. That was in March. Five months ago!

https://news.sky.com/story/us-imposes-sanctions-on-russia-over-skripal-poisonings-in-salisbury-11466190

@4meAndyou Still decent I think considering that the sanctions are actually mandated by US law since 1991. Trump's administration would be remiss if they didn't sign off on them, and even so he's already signaled that he wants to designate several loopholes. Congress actually even passed a resolution some time ago that disallowed Trump from unilaterally lifting sanctions on Russia, because they were concerned he would do just that.

@room101 Not only that, but they were required by law.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-hit-russia-sanctions-poisoning-russian-double-agent/story?id=57115212

I love how the trumpettes want to take credit for something that was required by law, and was late to boot.

@snowbelt It never ceases to amaze me how they try to take credit for stuff that they haven't done and have actually tried to reverse.

@room101 It is strikingly like the book 1984 where reality no longer exists, and people are told what reality is.

@Xuan12 I have been wondering about the logic of imposing stricter sanctions just now. I heard the reason given, and we know that is nonsense. There is something else going on. I'll bet you a dollar.

We can all observe the new swarming of Russian subs in the Atlantic after the announcement of the sanctions. There are fears that the Russians might attack the Atlantic cable.

I am also concerned that Congress passed a law during a democratic majority, and the democrats are known to be warhawks when it comes to Russia. They can't forget the old Soviet Union, and some of them appear to be living in the past.

Russia's current economy is smaller than that of the State of Texas. The one and only thing that makes us notice Russia is their nukes and the fact that they are bad actors. I wonder if squashing Russian economy like a bug is really the smartest option.

@4meAndyou The Democrats are warhawks? Really? Care to explain how you come to that conclusion.

@snowbelt The parallels between 1984 and trumpland are frightening in their prescience.

@4meAndyou To be fair, when the law was passed, the Soviet Union was still intact. I don't know what the long term result of these sanctions will be, but at this time pretty much every western intelligence agency agrees that there has been an organized and deliberate attempt from Russia to infiltrate western media, delegitimize the democratic process, sow doubt, and influence the affairs of western nations.

These new sanctions, focused mostly on technology, are very likely a direct response to these findings.

@room101 I don't like to wrangle and you seem like you do, but here is a paragraph from a left wing newspaper article you might wish to consider, with a link so that you can read the whole article.

"Members of Congress are often rewarded or praised by engaged constituents or advocacy groups for taking strong positions, even if those positions might complicate elements of U.S. foreign policy. This liberates lawmakers to place principle over pragmatism, pushing for far-reaching sanctions on governments engaged in objectionable behavior."

Even if those positions involve antagonizing Russia and escalating an international situation. The Democrats hostility toward Russia and all things Russian has been much in the news lately.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/16/so-congress-is-challenging-the-president-about-sanctions-that-has-a-long-history/?utm_term=.b8123cd596d3

@4meAndyou At the risk of being accused of liking to "wrangle", my question was about your assertion that Democrats are warhawks. I can't see anything in the quote that supports your assertion.

However, I will read the article. Maybe there's a fuller explanation contained therein.

@Xuan12 Correct in every point. We know the Russians are still bad actors, but they no longer have the power of the former Soviet Union. Unfortunately, they have retained their nuclear power, and Putin is former KGB. I just don't think that severe sanctions with no way out is the way to deal with Putin, because of who he is and was, but I agree that we will have to wait and see what happens.

@room101 Here's another article, more to the point.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html

@4meAndyou yeah, nothing there that supports your assertion

@4meAndyou Putin will probably never be convinced to play nice with the West, he has his reasons, both practical and personal. But from what I've seen in Russian Media and politics, the people are a little more flexible than the leadership, like most places. Of course, presently they are under heavy propaganda and state rhetoric, which does have a potent effect.

Just pure speculation, but maybe a wise course of action would be directly replicate the Russian tactics. Wait until Putin is finally out of power, (since no headway will ever likely be made with him in power), and then make direct appeals to the Russian citizenry at large. It would actually be quite efficient come to think of it. With so much of their population concentrated in the western urban areas you would need relatively little presence to reach many Russians. Back it up with something everyone understands, some material influence $$$, and one might achieve significant softening of Russia's attitude toward the west. With a less effective or more sympathetic Russian president in charge, this might even induce some progress.

@4meAndyou All I'm seeing in that article is how the Democratic party is fielding veterans from the military and intelligence services. Maybe that constitutes a warhawk mentality to some. However, to me, it translates as an attempt to do two things. First, appeal to the hawkish temperament of traditional Republican voters. Second, reinforce the much compromised (under a Republican president, congress, senate and legislature) intelligence community.

@Xuan12 A very good analysis. But the problem is, Putin doesn't seem to going anywhere anytime soon.

@room101 Yeah, I remember reading a biography written about Putin. He was in the KGB stationed in East Germany when the wall came down. From what is written, it seems like it had a big effect on him. He scrambled to burn documents and wracked his brain trying to understand why the East Germans would revolt against USSR leadership. He might have even truly believed they were there to help the East Germans, even if they sometimes had to use unpalatable methods. (Though I doubt he himself would ever speak of his true feelings on the matter such that the public could ever hear.)

It seems to have triggered a period of introspection and learning for Putin, as he came to realize that they weren't there to help the East Germans or expand the ideology, not anymore anyway, they were there to defend and enrich the Russian heartland, as was the entire Soviet Union, and he crystalized the doubts he had been fostering about communism, paving the way for the oligarchic kleptocracy he would later sit atop of. These doubts of course were not uncommon in the Soviet Union, particularly among the educated, but none would match Putin in the sheer magnitude of ideological reversal. At least, none that we can see. The Soviet Elite knew the system was failing, and focus turned away from trying to fix it, toward seeing how much they could get out of it before the ride ended.

He also fostered a deep distrust of the west, and feelings of betrayal. Though I think over time those feelings have softened in intensity, there are material reasons he knows he can never take up a handshake from the west in fully good faith.

@room101 Kind of like reading and interpreting the bible, in a way. You can make the written word mean almost anything that aligns with whatever a person happens to want to emphasize.

@4meAndyou Erm......not really. An article either supports an assertion or it doesn't. At best, it may allude to something unsaid. But, with all due respect, neither of your articles even do that much.

And then there's the matter of verifiable history. Since WW2, the USA has been involved in five major wars. In chronological order; Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1&2 and, Afghanistan. Republicans where at the helm at the start of all of them.