See the full interview on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/russias-party-on-87936354The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) is the second ...
Do you seriously think that Putin invaded Ukraine not knowing they would get sanctioned by the entire Western world and losing hundreds of billions of their oligarchs’ money?
I've heard people say that United Russia is made up of two main components - the Oligarchs and the Siloviki (the security and intelligence complex). Occasionally they struggle for power internally but since Putin is strongly of the silovik background, the oligarchs have been subordinated to the siloviki for a long time.
I don't understand the complexities of Russian politics enough to have a firm view, but it's possible that the Oligarchs losing a bunch of money (and therefore power) actually benefitted the Siloviki faction inside United Russia. That goes hand in hand with the idea that by sanctioning the Oligarchs, the West actually threw away their best chance at overthrowing Putin internally via some sort of Oligarch-backed coup.
Edit: preemptive apologies to Russian speakers for probably butchering the grammatical forms.
The fact is that both Merkel and Hollande (guarantors of Minsk II) have publicly admitted that Minsk was merely to buy time for Ukraine to militarize itself, and was not a serious attempt to pursue peace between both countries.
Nitpick but I see this claim a lot but I don't buy it. Mostly because I don't believe Germany would plan so heavily around Russian gas if it knew the war was inevitable. I'm inclined to think they're impling it to look like they knew what they were doing and cover their own asses for negotiating a failed agreement, while appealing to an audience that is (for the most part) uncritically supportive of Ukraine. I also think its a pretty big stretch to characterize their words as "publically admitting it was not a serious agreement." What Merkel said was,
Then, in order to prevent even worse things, everyone signed this agreement. Was it possible to stop the war then? This question is no longer relevant. I believe that the Minsk agreements gave Ukraine more time to develop between 2014 and 2021.
What she's saying is that regardless of whether or not it was possible to achieve peace through the negotiations, they were still beneficial to Ukraine in buying time. That's not the same thing as saying they were done in bad faith.
I think the Russian charactization of this quote is trying to paint a picture of Western governments as highly co-ordinated, when the reality is more complex. Germany isn't holding Ukraine's leash, the US had to blow uo Nord Stream because the Germans weren't willing to co-operate, etc. There's bumbling, competing interests at play.
I've had this conversation before but I find it extremely implausible that the West planned all of this out in advance and the lynchpin of the entire plot was being able to destroy Russia with sanctions alone. Again, Germany wasn't even willing to fully participate, and they had to resort to some pretty desperate measures after the pipeline was destroyed. Nothing was done to ensure India's cooperation, and they were saber-rattling with China, neither of which makes sense if they were planning on all this.
I also haven't heard any real explanation for what caused this miscalculation, other than pure stupidity and buying into their own propaganda. I think this is the same flawed analysis behind the initial point that I disputed. When a politician says something you can't just take it at face value, even when it fits into your narrative and makes them look bad, you still have to consider why they're saying it, what they're trying to accomplish, and who they're trying to appeal to. When they started doing sanctions, obviously they would say they thought they would work, but this indicates nothing about their actual beliefs. They were just trying to drum up support for the sanctions, there's no reason why they'd say, "Well, who knows if these will work or not" if they're trying to get people to support them. Very rarely do politicians say something just because they think it's true.
The narrative that fits actual events better without requiring abject stupidity and actions contrary to the actors' own interests, is that Germany did not expect a full scale war and did not plan for losing Nord Stream 2. The outbreak of war came as a surprise to a lot of people, including the majority of this site, and Merkel did not have a crystal ball. The ceasefire was broken due to domestic pressure from the far-right, plus international pressure from the US, which did not assume sanctions would work, but rather saw extended bloodshed as a possibility and did not care, due to the profits it would mean for the military-industrial complex and not caring at all about the lives of Ukrainians. There are internal fractures within NATO and within NATO states, due to competing class interests, it's not one big conspiracy working together.
Why do you think it would need to be a conspiracy?
Because you're assuming coordination between different groups, even when it doesn't make sense and goes against their interests. This is like the third time I've brought this up - Germany relied heavily on Russian gas, then didn't shut it off, which led the US to blow up the pipeline. How do any of those events make sense in your narrative? Is all of that part of an elaborate ruse to trick people into thinking that my narrative is correct and yours is wrong? It's nonsense.
The Europeans simply didn’t see Russia as a potent threat and felt entitled to not giving Russia the respect it deserves.
And this is where I think your narrative is coming from. It's all about Russia surpassing everyone's expectations and proving how strong and powerful it is, and it's like, every event has to be somehow contorted to fit that narrative, when there's much more coherent ways to fit them together.
Tbh, it just seems like this is what you want to believe, in which case I can't stop you. You're not looking at countries' actions and you're also not looking at class interests, it's just "everybody hated Russia and thought they were weak when they were actually big and strong." It's a very biased and oversimplified narrative that I find hard to take seriously, I'm just as skeptical of that as I would be about one that's brazenly pro-Ukraine tbh.
Europe did not turn off Russian gas because they expected Russia to fold within a few months. They were confident that their sanctions were going to work.
So you're saying that not only was everyone in the West convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mere sanctions would cripple Russia, but also that those sanctions wouldn't even have to include gas?? That's even more absurd than I thought. I'm absolutely baffled at why you think Western leaders have such a ridiculously inflated view of the power of sanctions, when there's such a more reasonable explanation, that they were simply exaggerating the power of sanctions for the people watching at home.
Here’s what George Soros said in May 2022:
I don't care what he said. This whole time I've been explaining to you why you can't just take quotes at face value, and here you're just posting another quote and taking it at face value, and this time not even from a policy maker. People can confess to murder and still turn out to be innocent. You have to examine why they're saying it. In this case he's saying sanctions will work, as I have explained several times, because he supports them and wants to sell people on them, it tells us nothing about his actual beliefs. People in positions of power generally make public statements because of a rational calculus of what effect that statement will have, whether they think it's true or not is irrelevant. This is why you have to look at actions and interests and not just statements.
This is a very common assumption even in mainstream media
You're assuming that what's said in the media is the same reasoning and calculus that's happening behind closed doors. As I said, statements to the public are made based on political calculus, not actual beliefs. The reality is that the West's grip has been slipping even with smaller countries due to Chinese investment, which is why I find it completely implausible that Western policymakers simply didn't consider that Russia could just trade with China and India.
Assume for a moment that I'm correct, and that nobody actually expected sanctions to work. What consequences have any of them faced for saying that they would? None whatsoever. But saying they'd work helped build support for them. So there's a benefit to saying it an no drawback to saying it, so of course they're going to say it. What's so hard to understand about that?
Where did I ever say that?
It's literally your whole narrative!
but that does not mean their economy is stronger than Europe’s.
I never claimed you said anything like that.
It simply means that the global supply chain is far more complex than the European policymakers drafting the sanctions had anticipated
Right, because you think that they're unbelievably stupid and naive (yet at the same time managing to orchestrate a complicated long-term plot). Did they just not know that China exists? It's absurd to think that they wouldn't consider this possibility.
Here's the points that I think you're being fundamentally unreasonable about:
Taking politicians' words at face value as a reflection of genuine belief, instead of critically examining the calculus of why they would say something
Claiming that the idea that sanctions alone (not even including gas) would cripple Russia is anything but an absurd and blatantly unrealistic fantasy sold to the masses, to the point that policy-makers not only believed it but even relied on it as a lynchpin to their plans.
Believing an oversimplified narrative designed to make Russia look good over a more realistic narrative based on facts and class analysis, which still makes Russia look pretty good.
To the third point, I mean, come on. I can't count the number of cartoons I've seen where the bad guy underestimates the protagonist only for the protagonist to prove their worth. This is exactly the kind of simple narrative about empowerment and resiliance that I'd expect any country to put out during war-time. But Russia is a geopolitical entity and not a shonen character. Both it and it's rivals are composed of various competing interests acting more or less rationally. It's tiring to argue with this nonsense, Merkel does not control Ukraine and is not always in agreement with the US, and she also doesn't reveal her schemes to the hero in a villainous monologue to the hero just for shits and giggles.
I guess we're at an impasse, your narrative seems completely unreasonable to me, while it seems mine seems completely unreasonable to you. I think that our methods of examining the situation and drawing conclusion are completely different and irreconcilable, yours relies far too heavily on quotes, which I find unreliable.
You seem to think that German politicians have some “secret calculations”, but there aren’t
Of course there are and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. Every politician (hell, every individual) considers the effects of their words and what they say or don't say is influenced by that. This is a basic fundamental truth, literally nothing you say could convince me it's wrong lol. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant? That's the only reason I could imagine you disagreeing with it.
Germany’s position on sanctioning Russian gas was heavily reliant on the following two papers that were published in early March 2022
I don't read German, unfortunately. Think tanks have the same incentives to say things people want to hear as anybody else, so it doesn't mean much to me regardless. None of this stuff is what I look at to draw conclusions from which is why I think our approaches are just fundamentally incompatible. All the evidence you've presented can be explained by my narrative just as well as yours.
It’s just plain old political and bureaucratic processes based on faulty assumptions of a complex scenario.
I think I'd be more receptive towards your argument if you were claiming like, they thought the threat of sanctions would be painful enough to deter Russia from crossing the West due to the influence of Russian capitalists. But it would take extraordinary evidence to convince me that everyone essentially just forgot that China exists. It's very obvious to me (and was at the time) that sanctions alone would not cause Russia to collapse and I am unwilling to accept that policy makers with access to much more information and intelligence than me could be so much dumber than me, when more plausible explanations exist.
Sanctions didn't even bring down Afghanistan, nobody seriously believed they'd bring down Russia, it's absurd on its face.
Russia was following Minsk 2 much, much closer than Ukraine was, who had tens of thousands of cease fire violations. Its not a “both sides didn’t follow it” situation. It’s a “one side was acting in bad faith to buy time to militarize and always fully intended to attack eventually vs. the other side just didn’t want to have to deal with the whole situation and wanted it to chill out”
No they didnt. The obama regime was already thretening european companies that planned to invest in iran after the deal was suposedly in effect and before trump won.
This always seems like a poorly based position to me. All Russia wants would've been guaranteed by successful implementation of the agreement. What part of the Minsk agreements did Russia not adhere to?
deleted by creator
I've heard people say that United Russia is made up of two main components - the Oligarchs and the Siloviki (the security and intelligence complex). Occasionally they struggle for power internally but since Putin is strongly of the silovik background, the oligarchs have been subordinated to the siloviki for a long time.
I don't understand the complexities of Russian politics enough to have a firm view, but it's possible that the Oligarchs losing a bunch of money (and therefore power) actually benefitted the Siloviki faction inside United Russia. That goes hand in hand with the idea that by sanctioning the Oligarchs, the West actually threw away their best chance at overthrowing Putin internally via some sort of Oligarch-backed coup.
Edit: preemptive apologies to Russian speakers for probably butchering the grammatical forms.
Nitpick but I see this claim a lot but I don't buy it. Mostly because I don't believe Germany would plan so heavily around Russian gas if it knew the war was inevitable. I'm inclined to think they're impling it to look like they knew what they were doing and cover their own asses for negotiating a failed agreement, while appealing to an audience that is (for the most part) uncritically supportive of Ukraine. I also think its a pretty big stretch to characterize their words as "publically admitting it was not a serious agreement." What Merkel said was,
What she's saying is that regardless of whether or not it was possible to achieve peace through the negotiations, they were still beneficial to Ukraine in buying time. That's not the same thing as saying they were done in bad faith.
I think the Russian charactization of this quote is trying to paint a picture of Western governments as highly co-ordinated, when the reality is more complex. Germany isn't holding Ukraine's leash, the US had to blow uo Nord Stream because the Germans weren't willing to co-operate, etc. There's bumbling, competing interests at play.
deleted by creator
I've had this conversation before but I find it extremely implausible that the West planned all of this out in advance and the lynchpin of the entire plot was being able to destroy Russia with sanctions alone. Again, Germany wasn't even willing to fully participate, and they had to resort to some pretty desperate measures after the pipeline was destroyed. Nothing was done to ensure India's cooperation, and they were saber-rattling with China, neither of which makes sense if they were planning on all this.
I also haven't heard any real explanation for what caused this miscalculation, other than pure stupidity and buying into their own propaganda. I think this is the same flawed analysis behind the initial point that I disputed. When a politician says something you can't just take it at face value, even when it fits into your narrative and makes them look bad, you still have to consider why they're saying it, what they're trying to accomplish, and who they're trying to appeal to. When they started doing sanctions, obviously they would say they thought they would work, but this indicates nothing about their actual beliefs. They were just trying to drum up support for the sanctions, there's no reason why they'd say, "Well, who knows if these will work or not" if they're trying to get people to support them. Very rarely do politicians say something just because they think it's true.
The narrative that fits actual events better without requiring abject stupidity and actions contrary to the actors' own interests, is that Germany did not expect a full scale war and did not plan for losing Nord Stream 2. The outbreak of war came as a surprise to a lot of people, including the majority of this site, and Merkel did not have a crystal ball. The ceasefire was broken due to domestic pressure from the far-right, plus international pressure from the US, which did not assume sanctions would work, but rather saw extended bloodshed as a possibility and did not care, due to the profits it would mean for the military-industrial complex and not caring at all about the lives of Ukrainians. There are internal fractures within NATO and within NATO states, due to competing class interests, it's not one big conspiracy working together.
deleted by creator
Because you're assuming coordination between different groups, even when it doesn't make sense and goes against their interests. This is like the third time I've brought this up - Germany relied heavily on Russian gas, then didn't shut it off, which led the US to blow up the pipeline. How do any of those events make sense in your narrative? Is all of that part of an elaborate ruse to trick people into thinking that my narrative is correct and yours is wrong? It's nonsense.
And this is where I think your narrative is coming from. It's all about Russia surpassing everyone's expectations and proving how strong and powerful it is, and it's like, every event has to be somehow contorted to fit that narrative, when there's much more coherent ways to fit them together.
Tbh, it just seems like this is what you want to believe, in which case I can't stop you. You're not looking at countries' actions and you're also not looking at class interests, it's just "everybody hated Russia and thought they were weak when they were actually big and strong." It's a very biased and oversimplified narrative that I find hard to take seriously, I'm just as skeptical of that as I would be about one that's brazenly pro-Ukraine tbh.
deleted by creator
So you're saying that not only was everyone in the West convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mere sanctions would cripple Russia, but also that those sanctions wouldn't even have to include gas?? That's even more absurd than I thought. I'm absolutely baffled at why you think Western leaders have such a ridiculously inflated view of the power of sanctions, when there's such a more reasonable explanation, that they were simply exaggerating the power of sanctions for the people watching at home.
I don't care what he said. This whole time I've been explaining to you why you can't just take quotes at face value, and here you're just posting another quote and taking it at face value, and this time not even from a policy maker. People can confess to murder and still turn out to be innocent. You have to examine why they're saying it. In this case he's saying sanctions will work, as I have explained several times, because he supports them and wants to sell people on them, it tells us nothing about his actual beliefs. People in positions of power generally make public statements because of a rational calculus of what effect that statement will have, whether they think it's true or not is irrelevant. This is why you have to look at actions and interests and not just statements.
You're assuming that what's said in the media is the same reasoning and calculus that's happening behind closed doors. As I said, statements to the public are made based on political calculus, not actual beliefs. The reality is that the West's grip has been slipping even with smaller countries due to Chinese investment, which is why I find it completely implausible that Western policymakers simply didn't consider that Russia could just trade with China and India.
Assume for a moment that I'm correct, and that nobody actually expected sanctions to work. What consequences have any of them faced for saying that they would? None whatsoever. But saying they'd work helped build support for them. So there's a benefit to saying it an no drawback to saying it, so of course they're going to say it. What's so hard to understand about that?
It's literally your whole narrative!
I never claimed you said anything like that.
Right, because you think that they're unbelievably stupid and naive (yet at the same time managing to orchestrate a complicated long-term plot). Did they just not know that China exists? It's absurd to think that they wouldn't consider this possibility.
Here's the points that I think you're being fundamentally unreasonable about:
Taking politicians' words at face value as a reflection of genuine belief, instead of critically examining the calculus of why they would say something
Claiming that the idea that sanctions alone (not even including gas) would cripple Russia is anything but an absurd and blatantly unrealistic fantasy sold to the masses, to the point that policy-makers not only believed it but even relied on it as a lynchpin to their plans.
Believing an oversimplified narrative designed to make Russia look good over a more realistic narrative based on facts and class analysis, which still makes Russia look pretty good.
To the third point, I mean, come on. I can't count the number of cartoons I've seen where the bad guy underestimates the protagonist only for the protagonist to prove their worth. This is exactly the kind of simple narrative about empowerment and resiliance that I'd expect any country to put out during war-time. But Russia is a geopolitical entity and not a shonen character. Both it and it's rivals are composed of various competing interests acting more or less rationally. It's tiring to argue with this nonsense, Merkel does not control Ukraine and is not always in agreement with the US, and she also doesn't reveal her schemes to the hero in a villainous monologue to the hero just for shits and giggles.
I guess we're at an impasse, your narrative seems completely unreasonable to me, while it seems mine seems completely unreasonable to you. I think that our methods of examining the situation and drawing conclusion are completely different and irreconcilable, yours relies far too heavily on quotes, which I find unreliable.
deleted by creator
Of course there are and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. Every politician (hell, every individual) considers the effects of their words and what they say or don't say is influenced by that. This is a basic fundamental truth, literally nothing you say could convince me it's wrong lol. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant? That's the only reason I could imagine you disagreeing with it.
I don't read German, unfortunately. Think tanks have the same incentives to say things people want to hear as anybody else, so it doesn't mean much to me regardless. None of this stuff is what I look at to draw conclusions from which is why I think our approaches are just fundamentally incompatible. All the evidence you've presented can be explained by my narrative just as well as yours.
I think I'd be more receptive towards your argument if you were claiming like, they thought the threat of sanctions would be painful enough to deter Russia from crossing the West due to the influence of Russian capitalists. But it would take extraordinary evidence to convince me that everyone essentially just forgot that China exists. It's very obvious to me (and was at the time) that sanctions alone would not cause Russia to collapse and I am unwilling to accept that policy makers with access to much more information and intelligence than me could be so much dumber than me, when more plausible explanations exist.
Sanctions didn't even bring down Afghanistan, nobody seriously believed they'd bring down Russia, it's absurd on its face.
deleted by creator
Both sides pro-imperialist nonsense akin to "Both sides never seriously intended to follow the Iran deal" to defend ripping it up
deleted by creator
Russia was following Minsk 2 much, much closer than Ukraine was, who had tens of thousands of cease fire violations. Its not a “both sides didn’t follow it” situation. It’s a “one side was acting in bad faith to buy time to militarize and always fully intended to attack eventually vs. the other side just didn’t want to have to deal with the whole situation and wanted it to chill out”
deleted by creator
@ThomasMuentzner@hexbear.net
I saw you posting the data on ceasefire violations running up to the invasion, can you post this here?
deleted by creator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHWHqj8g7Bk
https://www.youtube.com/@PatrickLancasterNewsToday/videos (sort oldest )
i just saw it yesterday at sleepy time , they are here
https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512872
No they didnt. The obama regime was already thretening european companies that planned to invest in iran after the deal was suposedly in effect and before trump won.
This always seems like a poorly based position to me. All Russia wants would've been guaranteed by successful implementation of the agreement. What part of the Minsk agreements did Russia not adhere to?