Robin Brooks, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, took to X recently to declare that "there needs to be a ban on any academic papers that interpret Russiaâs resilient GDP as a sign that sanctions arenât working." I found it remarkable that he should acknowledge the unexpected resilience of Russiaâs economy yet try to disbar analysis which might suggest, therefore, that sanctions had failed.
Brooks produces some interesting analysis, and at the heart of his statement lies an important argument that others have taken up recently: that Western powers didnât impose tough enough sanctions on Russia at the start of the Ukraine crisis, but could still impose such a catastrophic economic cost on Russia that Putin will, for the first time, be forced to back down.
Letâs take a look at what a maximum pressure policy in 2014 might have involved. (...)
Seems like they copied the Africa model and attempted to exploit Russia, which only benefits large US cos and the local "mafia"
can't have well running markets without rule of law and protection of private property.
Asked about the lawsuit during a call with reporters Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov admitted that he âcanât even pronounce this figure rightâ but said that the eye-watering sum was âfilled with symbolism.â Google âshould not be restricting the actions of our broadcasters on its platform,â he added.
CNN has contacted Google for comment. In quarterly earnings published this week, the company referred to âongoing legal mattersâ relating to its business in Russia.
âCivil judgments that include compounding penalties have been imposed upon us in connection with disputes regarding the termination of accounts, including those of sanctioned parties,â Google said. âWe do not believe these ongoing legal matters will have a material adverse effect (on earnings).â
Following Russiaâs full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Google curtailed operations in the country but stopped short of pulling out altogether, in contrast with several other American tech companies. Many of its services, including Search and YouTube, continue to be available in the country.
Months after the invasion, Googleâs Russia subsidiary filed for bankruptcy and paused most of its commercial operations after the government seized control of its bank accounts.
You know what is most sad about this? It's that I strongly suspect you are not even paid to echo FSB propaganda, you just lap it up.
1. Ukraine is not governed by Nazis.
2. Russia already had a border with Nato countries prior to the SMO
3. Ukraine had sweet FA offensive capability left after the Minsk agreements
4. Ukraine had renounced its plans to join NATO prior to the February invasion
5. There was demonstrably no bad intent on the part of any western powers towards Russia. Rather, the hope that open business ties would result in a richer, more satisfied and stable Russia amenable to the normal laws of trade and international law (see Nordstream and the amount of western capital invested in Russia)
6. The narrative of Russian speakers being persecuted in the Donetsk is pure fabrication.
Finally, you claim that NATO has fallen into a trap? So Russia set a trap? What trap is this?
If Russia was interested in denatzification, they wouldn't support Hungary
The Western world has either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood the purpose and goal of the special military operation. It was to de Nazify and destroy offensive capability of the Ukranian army whilst preventing NATO membership which would have a long standing hostile power with bad intent and nuclear armaments directly on their southern border in former Russian lands. Also to stop the Nazis from terrorizing and slaughtering Russians in the East. It appears NATO just continuously falls into the trap. The end is near.
The trap is attrition. The mirror is in the hall or your bathroom.
Srsly? With the exception of air defence, NATO has only been sending its army surplus to Ukraine and then only tidbits.
If NATO truly stepped in, it would over in days and the Russians actually know this. That is why they are trying to erode western resolve with a massive disinformation campaign, that you seem only too willing to help them with.
This conflict should never have happened. It is the product of the mind of a small main suffering from a massive inferiority complex who was cushioned into the delusion that he could get his way by bullying and threatening. He's wrong. But it is going to take a lot of pain and suffering till he learns.
You know what is most sad about this? It's that I strongly suspect you are not even paid to echo FSB propaganda, you just lap it up.
1. Ukraine is not governed by Nazis.
2. Russia already had a border with Nato countries prior to the SMO
3. Ukraine had sweet FA offensive capability left after the Minsk agreements
4. Ukraine had renounced its plans to join NATO prior to the February invasion
5. There was demonstrably no bad intent on the part of any western powers towards Russia. Rather, the hope that open business ties would result in a richer, more satisfied and stable Russia amenable to the normal laws of trade and international law (see Nordstream and the amount of western capital invested in Russia)
6. The narrative of Russian speakers being persecuted in the Donetsk is pure fabrication.
Finally, you claim that NATO has fallen into a trap? So Russia set a trap? What trap is this?
The trap is attrition. The mirror is in the hall or your bathroom.
The Western world has either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood the purpose and goal of the special military operation. It was to de Nazify and destroy offensive capability of the Ukranian army whilst preventing NATO membership which would have a long standing hostile power with bad intent and nuclear armaments directly on their southern border in former Russian lands. Also to stop the Nazis from terrorizing and slaughtering Russians in the East. It appears NATO just continuously falls into the trap. The end is near.
You know what is most sad about this? It's that I strongly suspect you are not even paid to echo FSB propaganda, you just lap it up.
1. Ukraine is not governed by Nazis.
2. Russia already had a border with Nato countries prior to the SMO
3. Ukraine had sweet FA offensive capability left after the Minsk agreements
4. Ukraine had renounced its plans to join NATO prior to the February invasion
5. There was demonstrably no bad intent on the part of any western powers towards Russia. Rather, the hope that open business ties would result in a richer, more satisfied and stable Russia amenable to the normal laws of trade and international law (see Nordstream and the amount of western capital invested in Russia)
6. The narrative of Russian speakers being persecuted in the Donetsk is pure fabrication.
Finally, you claim that NATO has fallen into a trap? So Russia set a trap? What trap is this?
The Western world has either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood the purpose and goal of the special military operation. It was to de Nazify and destroy offensive capability of the Ukranian army whilst preventing NATO membership which would have a long standing hostile power with bad intent and nuclear armaments directly on their southern border in former Russian lands. Also to stop the Nazis from terrorizing and slaughtering Russians in the East. It appears NATO just continuously falls into the trap. The end is near.
What doe that even mean? Free speech is just one value among many that needs to be carefully balanced...by those in power, who get to decide when words or ideas are so dangerous that people have to be put in prison over them?
I'm going to (thematically) repeat the question from the previous post: why should you (as in you personally) feel safe from such a regime?
Well, you don't get to "shut it down", RT operates outside the jurisdiction of US law. You can punish those who would repeat its words here, but RT isn't going away.
The RT representatives here are being charged with failing to register as foreign agents; had they done so there would be no legal mechanism to prosecute them. You can hear all about the case in the video below.
Some qualifiers: I like the heck out of Ryan McBeth, he does heroic work tracking down and exposing Russian disinformatzia operations and I support him on Substack. I've also disagreed with him om that forum about his views on what should be done about disinformation operations. His views are similar to yours, but he favors a "kinetic" response. As in Tomahawks thru windows.
Which I want you to ponder for a moment. That response is different in degree, not kind to what you propose: the use of state violence to repress speech those in power disfavor. That you aren't horrified by that prospect is troubling.
Our next presidentâthe guy with control of the Tomahawksâmay be someone who has a history of sympathetic views of the monster responsible for the disinformation you're so eager to punish. Ponder the implications of that as well.
No, we are talking at cross purposes. This is not a free speech issue. I am in favour of free speech. I have no problem with people getting on their soapboxes and spouting forth whatever babble comes into their heads, regardless of how well founded it might be in fact or fiction. That is not what I want to shut down. And apologies in advance, I haven't watched the video you linked to, will do it later.
Let's look at it from the other perspective, from that of Russia - hang on, I don't want to conflate the FSB-mafia rulers of Russia with the nation as a whole, though it is becoming increasingly hard not to do - so let's look at this from just the FSB perspective.
They know their autocratic regime is under threat from advancing democratic ideas and open systems (witness recent elections in Belarus and Ukraine). They have a long history of state-controlled propaganda that works fine, but only when they control the state apparatus.
This doesn't work in the international domain because they don't control other countries - and particularly not the internet - so their normal mechanisms for controlling the mind-space fail. So what does it do? It goes to the other extreme and floods the international thought-space with so much noise that it drowns out any signal.
As Darth-Putin so succinctly puts it, the purpose of propaganda is not to make you believe something, it is to make you believe nothing.
When you get guys like Tucker Carlson championing Nazi revisionists and certifying they guy's credentials by claiming he must be on to something simply because mainstream thinkers all think he is wrong, then you can see the effect of this. If you can echo some bullshit loudly or repeatedly enough, you will get a cohort of willing idiots who latch on to it.
(EDIT: deleted half of this post as a I realise I misunderstood your question of "being afraid of a regime" to relate to Russia, when you actually meant government overreach)
Yes, there is an inherent contradiction in using the state apparatus to suppress thought and free speech, even when the targets of such suppression are protagonists who are funded and organised by a hostile nation. I see your point. But there are limits on free speech, just as there are limits on state actions (at least in open societies with democratically-elected governments). My argument is that when the hostile nation is ultimately out to repress free speech as it demonstrably is in this case (just look at the internal situation within Russia) then a state is justified to take action to counter it, even if this, ironically, involves restricting the hostile nation's right to express its inner Dobermann.
Basically, the foreign agent's law is IMO the right mechanism here and is the course being taken. The funding behind the propaganda is what needs to be shut down.
free speech issues notwithstanding, there are cases where it is simply negligent not to repress it ("fire!" in a theatre case).
What doe that even mean? Free speech is just one value among many that needs to be carefully balanced...by those in power, who get to decide when words or ideas are so dangerous that people have to be put in prison over them?
I'm going to (thematically) repeat the question from the previous post: why should you (as in you personally) feel safe from such a regime?
I see RT as a massively successful propaganda tool of a foreign government to topple democratic institutions. It has already culminated in Brexit and is doing a fine job of destabilising both the US and the rest of Europe. The evidence that this is their intent is there. The evidence of the programs efficacy is there. Ergo it falls under basic negligence law.
That's more than enough for me to shut it down. Not to do so is tantamount to supporting the repressive actions of an autocratic government (whose intent is ultimately about repressing free speech).
Well, you don't get to "shut it down", RT operates outside the jurisdiction of US law. You can punish those who would repeat its words here, but RT isn't going away.
The RT representatives here are being charged with failing to register as foreign agents; had they done so there would be no legal mechanism to prosecute them. You can hear all about the case in the video below.
Some qualifiers: I like the heck out of Ryan McBeth, he does heroic work tracking down and exposing Russian disinformatzia operations and I support him on Substack. I've also disagreed with him om that forum about his views on what should be done about disinformation operations. His views are similar to yours, but he favors a "kinetic" response. As in Tomahawks thru windows.
Which I want you to ponder for a moment. That response is different in degree, not kind to what you propose: the use of state violence to repress speech those in power disfavor. That you aren't horrified by that prospect is troubling.
Our next president—the guy with control of the Tomahawks—may be someone who has a history of sympathetic views of the monster responsible for the disinformation you're so eager to punish. Ponder the implications of that as well.
