Despite Western sanctions, Russian ruble and banks are recovering

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Despite Western sanctions, Russian ruble and banks are recovering

Lucrative oil and gas exports, and strict currency controls, are behind the stabilization

By Jeanne Whalen

Today at 5:00 a.m. EDT

 

Russia’s ruble and banking system are showing continued signs of recovery from the initial punch of sanctions, as Moscow relies on energy exports and currency controls to partly protect the nation’s economy.

 

After initially plummeting, the ruble has rebounded and is edging closer to the value it held before the war began, according to the official exchange rate. And the banking system is gradually stabilizing as panicked customer withdrawals subside, economists say.

 

 

Some of the recovery is artificial, made possible by strict limits that the central bank, the Bank of Russia, has placed on currency exchange, withdrawals and hard-currency transfers overseas. But it is also due to a very real factor still working in Russia’s favor: strong oil and gas exports that bring a flood of hard currency into the country.

 

“I think the key signal is that, for now, it appears the Bank of Russia managed to avoid a deep financial crisis,” said Elina Ribakova, deputy chief economist at the Institute of International Finance, an association of banks and finance companies. “We were concerned that bank runs as a result of sanctions could bring down some of the more systemic [state-owned] banks. It appears that it has not happened.”

In the days after Russia’s invasion began on Feb. 24, the ruble fell from about 80 to the dollar to a low of 120 to the dollar. It has now climbed back to 84, according to the central bank’s official rate.

Russia’s economy is still experiencing a lot of pain that is likely to intensify, economists say. They forecast that inflation could reach at least 20 percent this year, and that gross domestic product will shrink by 15 percent, wiping away years of economic growth.

Some imported goods are disappearing from store shelves as global shipping companies halt deliveries, and some manufacturers are suspending production because sanctions are preventing them from buying electronic components.

Hundreds of Western corporations have stopped operations in Russia, depriving the country of consumer goods and thousands of jobs. And tens of thousands of young professionals have fled the country out of opposition to the war or fear of sanctions, causing a devastating brain drain.

Amid all of this instability, the ruble’s recovery, even if manipulated by currency controls, helps the state convey an image of control, said Janis Kluge, an economist at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin.

“The psychological effect is very important,” he said. “It’s very important what the population thinks about the health of the economy, and the ruble is one of the main indicators that every Russian knows.”

The official rate doesn’t necessarily reflect the ruble’s real value, economists say. The central bank has banned citizens from exchanging rubles for dollars until Sept. 9, creating a black market where the ruble trades at weaker values than the official rate, according to Russian economists and media reports.

One of the toughest sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies was a freeze on the Russian central bank’s foreign currency reserves. That was designed to stop Russia from using its stash of dollars and euros to buy rubles to prop up the ruble’s value.

But Russia has found a partial way around that punishment: The central bank in late February began requiring exporting companies to exchange 80 percent of their hard-currency revenue for rubles, creating new demand for Russia’s currency.

Russia’s continuing oil and gas exports, amid high global prices, has ensured a steady stream of hard currency to support this state-mandated exchange.

“Yes, this is not a freely determined ruble exchange rate, but we could have easily seen a scenario where a [central bank] would have not managed to prevent further ruble depreciation even with emergency measures. Furthermore, Russia is continuing to enjoy large [foreign currency] inflows as it is still selling commodities,” Ribakova said.

Just after sanctions hit, long lines appeared at ATMs as panicked Russians queued to withdraw cash, worried about a collapse of the currency and the banking system. That forced banks to borrow heavily from the central bank to meet demand for withdrawals, Ribakova said. But this borrowing has lessened in recent days, showing that the banking sector is stabilizing, she added.

The ruble’s recovery, and the strong financing that oil and gas revenue are giving Russia’s government and war effort, have heightened calls from Ukraine and its supporters for an embargo on Russian energy exports.

The United States and United Kingdom have stopped buying Russian oil and gas, and Poland on Wednesday said it will halt Russian oil imports by the end of the year.

Other European nations, including Germany, have vowed to drastically cut imports but have been reluctant to embrace full embargoes because they rely heavily on Russian energy.

“If we see more shelling and bombing, I would say pressure will be growing on Germany, in particular” to adopt a full embargo, said Maria Shagina, a sanctions expert at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

On a scale of 1 to 10, the current sanctions on Russia are a 7 or 8 in intensity, says Edward Fishman, a former State Department official who worked on sanctions policy during the Obama administration.

In addition to halting purchases of Russian oil and gas, there are several other steps Western countries can still take to increase pressure, he said. These include adopting full blocking sanctions on more Russian banks and companies, and cutting more banks from SWIFT, the global financial messaging system that serves as the backbone for bank-to-bank transactions worldwide.

At the moment, only one of Russia’s five largest banks, VTB, has been cut off from SWIFT and subjected to full blocking sanctions, said Fishman, who is now adjunct professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University.

“There was sort of a big bang of sanctions in the first 10 days of Putin’s declaration of war … but I think pressure has leveled off in the last few weeks,” he said.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/03/31/ruble-recovery-sanctions-russia/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_world-europe

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Not only is Russia's economy recovering from sanctions, here in the U.S. the national average for gas has been over $4 for almost a month.

Republicans can't scapegoat Biden for all this. They supported Biden's sanctions

Quote

The bill passed with a 424-8 vote. These eight Republicans voted against the bill: 

• Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.
• Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C.
• Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.
• Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla. 
• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.
• Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis.
• Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.
• Rep. Chip Roy, Texas

Several of the members took to social media to explain their votes.

Massie said in a tweet the bill would give the president "broad authority to sanction virtually anyone, anywhere in the world, whether they are connected to Russia or not."

Biggs made a similar case, explaining in a video shared to Twitter that he voted against the bill because it purportedly would allow the president to place sanctions on "almost anybody in the world" whether they have ties to Russia or not. 

"He gets to define what a human rights abuse is and he gets to go after anybody he thinks might be committing some kind of human rights abuse," Biggs said, claiming the bill could be used to place sanctions against "pro-life advocates."

Gaetz shared Biggs' video, saying he voted with the Arizona representative "for these reasons and others," and Roy shared Massie's tweet, raising similar points. 

Greene told USA TODAY in an email that she voted against the bill because it "hands way too much over to Biden" and would lead to potentially fatal consequences.

"Russia is a top grain exporter and a top fertilizer exporter," she said via a spokesperson. "If we stop them from being able to trade, then we are looking at real food shortages and famine. We’re talking about loss of life." 

Boebert said via a spokesperson that the bill had "bad language that could lead to sanctioning ‘human rights abusers’ who simply hold traditional views of life and family and restrict access to abortion."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/03/18/lawmakers-voted-suspending-normal-trade-relations-russia/7089373001/

[TexasTiger 12,961]

4 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Not only is Russia's economy recovering from sanctions, here in the U.S. the national average for gas has been over $4 for almost a month.

Republicans can't scapegoat Biden for all this. They supported Biden's sanctions

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/03/18/lawmakers-voted-suspending-normal-trade-relations-russia/7089373001/

Having the currency artificially propped up is hardly economic recovery. The impact will be long-term in many ways. One, impacts weapons production:

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2022/04/01/2003775794

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/30/u-s-boasts-99-percent-drop-in-controlled-technology-exports-to-russia-00021785

[homersapien 11,393]

Get back to us in a couple of months.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

Get back to us in a couple of months.

 

Wait.  A couple of months????   I thought Russia would be begging to stop the war in 30 days.  Oh yeah, I forgot, sanction are not a deterrent.  So this is going to last longer and we might be headed into a recession.  What’s that old saying?  An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Yeah, that’s it.  Biden knew Russia was going to invade as he said so and did NOTHING.  

[TexasTiger 12,961]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Wait.  A couple of months????   I thought Russia would be begging to stop the war in 30 days.  Oh yeah, I forgot, sanction are not a deterrent.  So this is going to last longer and we might be headed into a recession.  What’s that old saying?  An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Yeah, that’s it.  Biden knew Russia was going to invade as he said so and did NOTHING.  

What would you do to prevent it? 

And, yes, in a global economy major actions elsewhere impact most countries. Shanghai locking down does, to. Also Biden’s fault? Seems like you’re more interested in finding ways to blame Biden than you are concerned about the spread of authoritarianism.

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

What would you do to prevent it? 

And, yes, in a global economy major actions elsewhere impact most countries. Shanghai locking down does, to. Also Biden’s fault? Seems like you’re more interested in finding ways to blame Biden than you are concerned about the spread of authoritarianism.

Russia was building up troops on the boarder of Ukraine for months prior to the invasion.  Biden could have scheduled some *military exercises* in Poland about the same time and I would guess Putin would have reacted.  Putin’s first reaction would not have been to invade Ukraine, but probably wanting to talk to Biden.

Dialogue would have been meaningful at that point, instead Putin just gathered troops and was embolden by Biden’s lack of action.  Yes I blame Biden, this invasion on his watch, whether the Democrats want to deflect or not.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Russia was building up troops on the boarder of Ukraine for months prior to the invasion.  Biden could have scheduled some *military exercises* in Poland about the same time and I would guess Putin would have reacted.  Putin’s first reaction would not have been to invade Ukraine, but probably wanting to talk to Biden.

Dialogue would have been meaningful at that point, instead Putin just gathered troops and was embolden by Biden’s lack of action.  Yes I blame Biden, this invasion on his watch, whether the Democrats want to deflect or not.

You’re purely fabricating an imagined alternate reality to sustain your obsessive criticism. If he’d done what you now say then, you’d have criticized that, too, as provoking Russia to deflect from domestic problems.

[homersapien 11,393]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Wait.  A couple of months????   I thought Russia would be begging to stop the war in 30 days.  Oh yeah, I forgot, sanction are not a deterrent.  So this is going to last longer and we might be headed into a recession.  What’s that old saying?  An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Yeah, that’s it.  Biden knew Russia was going to invade as he said so and did NOTHING.  

BS.

U.S. warnings prevented Putin from executing the expected "false flag" premise for invasion a la Hitler/Poland.

https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-us-warns-ukraine-full-scale-russian-invasion-within-48-hours-1681798

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/11/biden-ukraine-us-russian-invasion-winter-olympics

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2022-02-11/u-s-warns-of-imminent-russian-invasion-of-ukraine

It set the tone and reinforced our leadership of Nato and other countries hin the anti-Russian coalition.

Just imagine how Trump would have handled it.

And it should be obvious by now that sanctions weren't going to deter Putin.  That's a false premise. 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re purely fabricating an imagined alternate reality to sustain your obsessive criticism. If he’d done what you now say then, you’d have criticized that, too, as provoking Russia to deflect from domestic problems.

Of course it is fabricated, but you’re one that asked me what I would do.  Anything I would do is in my opinion, but I know Biden wouldn’t do something like that as he, just months earlier, ran from the Taliban and didn’t want to provoke the Bear.

Could anything deflect from domestic problems?

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

BS.

U.S. warnings prevented Putin from executing the expected "false flag" premise for invasion a la Hitler/Poland.

https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-us-warns-ukraine-full-scale-russian-invasion-within-48-hours-1681798

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/11/biden-ukraine-us-russian-invasion-winter-olympics

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2022-02-11/u-s-warns-of-imminent-russian-invasion-of-ukraine

It set the tone and reinforced our leadership of Nato and other countries hin the anti-Russian coalition.

Just imagine how Trump would have handled it.

And it should be obvious by now that sanctions weren't going to deter Putin.  That's a false premise. 

 

 

The articles you selected were dated February 11th and the invasion didn’t happen until the 24th.  So Biden knew Russia was going to invade Ukraine with some kind of *false flag* on the 12 or 13th and sat back to see what false flag he was going to do?  Sounds reasonable for Joe, no need to try to disrupt Putin’s plans since China gave Biden up to 10 days to do something because China didn’t want Russia to steal the thunder from the Olympics.  Typical Joe, wait and see what Putin is going to do and then react.  Putin is in charge of this war.  

Oh, it was obvious to most that those sanctions were not going to deter Putin from the beginning, but that’s all Biden had.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course it is fabricated, but you’re one that asked me what I would do.  Anything I would do is in my opinion, but I know Biden wouldn’t do something like that as he, just months earlier, ran from the Taliban and didn’t want to provoke the Bear.

Could anything deflect from domestic problems?

Your predicted outcome is wildly optimistic, especially considering troops were deployed to neighboring NATO countries:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/595364-biden-orders-more-us-troops-to-eastern-europe-amid-russia-ukraine-tensions/amp/

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

14 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Your predicted outcome is wildly optimistic, especially considering troops were deployed to neighboring NATO countries:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/595364-biden-orders-more-us-troops-to-eastern-europe-amid-russia-ukraine-tensions/amp/

As far as I can tell, that article was 2 days before the invasion.  That is not when you deploy troops to deter Russia from invading.  You deploy troops when Russia starts to build up and not wait until they have 190,000 troops on the boarder of Ukraine.  Biden is all about decision by indecision.

[Leftfield 2,617]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

As far as I can tell, that article was 2 days before the invasion.  That is not when you deploy troops to deter Russia from invading.  You deploy troops when Russia starts to build up and not wait until they have 190,000 troops on the boarder of Ukraine.  Biden is all about decision by indecision.

You seem to be coming from the position that we could position troops anywhere we want, at any time we want. In order to position troops in Poland, we would have had to have permission. Are you certain this wasn't discussed with them, or NATO, and dismissed? After all, very few countries seemed to believe Russia would actually invade, and while Biden does not want to provoke war, the countries on Russia's borders are even more averse to it.

You may very well be right that the Biden administration was too slow to move, but there are many things that go on behind-the-scenes, and not every administration is going to send out a tweet storm when they don't get their way (and further piss off our allies). It would be much easier to take you seriously if you wouldn't demonstrate in the majority of your posts your level of absolute hatred and disdain for Biden (and pretty much all things Democrat), and could admit that the man, while deeply flawed, might actually have some redeeming characteristics.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

As far as I can tell, that article was 2 days before the invasion.  That is not when you deploy troops to deter Russia from invading.  You deploy troops when Russia starts to build up and not wait until they have 190,000 troops on the boarder of Ukraine.  Biden is all about decision by indecision.

Anytime he chose, you would criticize.

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You seem to be coming from the position that we could position troops anywhere we want, at any time we want. In order to position troops in Poland, we would have had to have permission. Are you certain this wasn't discussed with them, or NATO, and dismissed? After all, very few countries seemed to believe Russia would actually invade, and while Biden does not want to provoke war, the countries on Russia's borders are even more averse to it.

Are you sure it was discussed?  I was asked what I would do and that requires a little speculation on anyone’s part to answer the question.  After Russia had 190,000 troops on the boarder it is too late to do something.  I am sure countries were nervous, but didn’t express it publicly.  In fact Zelenskyy told the press Biden was over reacting when he said Russia was going to attack.  We don’t know what putting our troops in Poland would have done, but why no call Putins bluff before he invades?  As it turned out Ukraine was invaded and here we are.

12 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

It would be much easier to take you seriously if you wouldn't demonstrate in the majority of your posts your level of absolute hatred and disdain for Biden (and pretty much all things Democrat), and could admit that the man, while deeply flawed, might actually have some redeeming characteristics

I do believe Biden is not good for the country and the left of the Democratic Party is pulling his strings.  71% of the country believes America is heading in the wrong direction, Biden’s approval rating is in the mid 30%, he has lost support of Independence and Black Americans.  Why is that?  He may have some redeeming characteristics, but it would be nice for him to demonstrate those qualities.

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

26 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Anytime he chose, you would criticize.

I learned a lot from being on this forum for the last 4 years.

ETA: Do you agree with everything Biden has done since he took office?  If not; what do you disagree with?

Edited April 2, 2022 by I_M4_AU

[Leftfield 2,617]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Are you sure it was discussed?  I was asked what I would do and that requires a little speculation on anyone’s part to answer the question.  After Russia had 190,000 troops on the boarder it is too late to do something.  I am sure countries were nervous, but didn’t express it publicly.  In fact Zelenskyy told the press Biden was over reacting when he said Russia was going to attack.  We don’t know what putting our troops in Poland would have done, but why no call Putins bluff before he invades?  As it turned out Ukraine was invaded and here we are.

Never said it was discussed. I have no idea, but not everything that is discussed in government is released. You state definitively that posting troops on the border should have been done because Putin wouldn't have invaded, without admitting the possibilities that, 1) that might not be correct, and 2) Biden had even discussed it with other nations. Every statement you make about his decision making comes from the angle that he is not capable of any intelligent move whatsoever, but makes his choices solely based on fear or incompetence. Admittedly, we're in the Smack Talk forum, but your manner is the same in the serious forum. 

23 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I do believe Biden is not good for the country and the left of the Democratic Party is pulling his strings.  71% of the country believes America is heading in the wrong direction, Biden’s approval rating is in the mid 30%, he has lost support of Independence and Black Americans.  Why is that?  He may have some redeeming characteristics, but it would be nice for him to demonstrate those qualities.

Understood that you don't think he is good for the country - that's obvious. He has certainly made some serious errors and is paying for that. He has also made some good choices. In this case, you disagree that staying out of Ukraine is the correct move and I understand that, but the majority of governments, and most in our own (including a good portion of Republicans), do not. They understand that moving on Putin would not only risk escalation, but would could have severe, negative geopolitical ramifications across the world, particularly with China. I look forward to the day that our economy is far less dependent on China, but that's not the current reality. 

Question: would you support going in to Ukraine even if it meant prices here escalated even further? Would you then blame Biden for it?

[homersapien 11,393]

20 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The articles you selected were dated February 11th and the invasion didn’t happen until the 24th.  So Biden knew Russia was going to invade Ukraine with some kind of *false flag* on the 12 or 13th and sat back to see what false flag he was going to do?  Sounds reasonable for Joe, no need to try to disrupt Putin’s plans since China gave Biden up to 10 days to do something because China didn’t want Russia to steal the thunder from the Olympics.  Typical Joe, wait and see what Putin is going to do and then react.  Putin is in charge of this war.  

Oh, it was obvious to most that those sanctions were not going to deter Putin from the beginning, but that’s all Biden had.

Biden was certainly talking to our allies.  And as I recall, there was plenty being reported on the Russian build up of offensive forces on the border.

And of course "Putin is in charge of this war".  He started it. As much as you would like to spin it as such, it's certainly not Biden's war. 

Your partisanship analysis has become humorous - desperately and ridiculously humorous - but still humorous.   

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Never said it was discussed. I have no idea, but not everything that is discussed in government is released. You state definitively that posting troops on the border should have been done because Putin wouldn't have invaded, without admitting the possibilities that, 1) that might not be correct, and 2) Biden had even discussed it with other nations. Every statement you make about his decision making comes from the angle that he is not capable of any intelligent move whatsoever, but makes his choices solely based on fear or incompetence. Admittedly, we're in the Smack Talk forum, but your manner is the same in the serious forum. 

Understood that you don't think he is good for the country - that's obvious. He has certainly made some serious errors and is paying for that. He has also made some good choices. In this case, you disagree that staying out of Ukraine is the correct move and I understand that, but the majority of governments, and most in our own (including a good portion of Republicans), do not. They understand that moving on Putin would not only risk escalation, but would could have severe, negative geopolitical ramifications across the world, particularly with China. I look forward to the day that our economy is far less dependent on China, but that's not the current reality. 

Question: would you support going in to Ukraine even if it meant prices here escalated even further? Would you then blame Biden for it?

This is what I said in my original post:

“Russia was building up troops on the boarder of Ukraine for months prior to the invasion.  Biden could have scheduled some *military exercises* in Poland about the same time and I would guess Putin would have reacted.  Putin’s first reaction would not have been to invade Ukraine, but probably wanting to talk to Biden.

Dialogue would have been meaningful at that point, instead Putin just gathered troops and was embolden by Biden’s lack of action.  Yes I blame Biden, this invasion on his watch, whether the Democrats want to deflect or not.”

Please show me where I stated *definitely* by posting troops on the boarder then Putin wouldn’t have invaded.  It appears your board name is well deserved.

Again, where did I say that I disagree that staying out of Ukraine is correct.  You’re implying I would like to see out troops involved in this war.  What I have discussed in this thread is a way we could have diplomatically stayed out of war by getting Putin to the table before he had 190,000 troops stationed on Ukraine’s border.

You are misrepresenting what I say because you have confirmation bias with everything I say.  You have admitted as much.

I was asked a question and I gave my answer, you obviously didn’t like and I wouldn’t expect many on here would, but it is my opinion and that’s it. 

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

And of course "Putin is in charge of this war".  He started it. As much as you would like to spin it as such, it's certainly not Biden's war.

I never said it was Biden’s war, but if you want to stop a war you have to make the aggressor change his aggression so he isn’t in charge.  The only thing that has been done is provide Ukraine with weapons that will not win the war, but are defensive in nature.  This is being done because *Putin is in charge of the war*.

[homersapien 11,393]

14 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I never said it was Biden’s war, but if you want to stop a war you have to make the aggressor change his aggression so he isn’t in charge.  The only thing that has been done is provide Ukraine with weapons that will not win the war, but are defensive in nature.  This is being done because *Putin is in charge of the war*.

What you said was:

"Yes I blame Biden, this invasion on his watch, whether the Democrats want to deflect or not.”

You are clearly trying to lay Putin's war directly at the feet of Biden.  It's a disingenuous and cynically partisan position. 

And do you really think Trump - who threatened to exit NATO and expresses obvious admiration for Putin (as a fellow authoritarian), and try to hold Ukraine hostage for a political favor - would have been more effective and correct as Biden has been?

As far as the practical value of the military aid we are providing Ukraine, what is it you are trying to imply?  We are sending them the appropriate weaponry to defend themselves (and this doesn't even account for the weaponry we don't know about.)  

Should we also be sending them strategic offensive weapons sufficient to attack Moscow or other parts of Russia?  

Finally, I would say that a successful defense of Ukraine from this Russian invasion is  "winning" the war. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What you said was:

"Yes I blame Biden, this invasion on his watch, whether the Democrats want to deflect or not.”

You are clearly trying to lay Putin's war directly at the feet of Biden.  It's a disingenuous and cynically partisan position. 

And do you really think Trump - who threatened to exit NATO and expresses obvious admiration for Putin (as a fellow authoritarian), and try to hold Ukraine hostage for a political favor - would have been more effective and correct as Biden has been?

As far as the practical value of the military aid we are providing Ukraine, what is it you are trying to imply?  We are sending them the appropriate weaponry to defend themselves (and this doesn't even account for the weaponry we don't know about.)  

Should we also be sending them strategic offensive weapons sufficient to attack Moscow or other parts of Russia?  

Finally, I would say that a successful defense of Ukraine from this Russian invasion is  "winning" the war. 

 

Another lib trying to twist the meaning of my words.  Your quote is out of context as I was referring to Biden not being aggressive enough to STOP the invasion, not for the invasion.  Words matter

 

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

You seem to be coming from the position that we could position troops anywhere we want, at any time we want. In order to position troops in Poland, we would have had to have permission. Are you certain this wasn't discussed with them, or NATO, and dismissed? After all, very few countries seemed to believe Russia would actually invade, and while Biden does not want to provoke war, the countries on Russia's borders are even more averse to it.

You may very well be right that the Biden administration was too slow to move, but there are many things that go on behind-the-scenes, and not every administration is going to send out a tweet storm when they don't get their way (and further piss off our allies). It would be much easier to take you seriously if you wouldn't demonstrate in the majority of your posts your level of absolute hatred and disdain for Biden (and pretty much all things Democrat), and could admit that the man, while deeply flawed, might actually have some redeeming characteristics.

He apparently doesn't realize that NATO is a partnership and the U.S. can't unilaterally send massive numbers of troops to Poland - or any other NATO country without agreement of that country, as well as the rest of the NATO partners.

But it's ironically funny how the other faction of MAGA Republicans are braying about how this Putin invasion is our fault for "provoking" or "threatening" Russia, which is exactly what posting troops in Poland would do. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ukraine-war-becomes-cudgel-republican-partys-internal-conflict-2022-03-13/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/15/opinions/tucker-carlson-putin-russia-obeidallah/index.html

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/tucker-carlson-kremlin-russia-tv

 

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Another lib trying to twist the meaning of my words.  Your quote is out of context as I was referring to Biden not being aggressive enough to STOP the invasion, not for the invasion.  Words matter

 

Well it's not my fault that you apparently cannot accurately reflect your thoughts. 

Regardless, what you are saying implies that Biden could have prevented the invasion by employing an enhanced military threat.  That is highly questionable, if not totally absurd.

What would have happened if we had pre-positioned troops in Poland? 

Would massing troops in Poland not have simply vindicated Putin's rationale for invading? (After all, one of Putin's major justifications for the invasion was the "threat" posed by NATO encroachment.)

And what would our response be if that threat failed to prevent the invasion - send those NATO troops into Ukraine to engage the Russian military directly?  

Do you really think our NATO partners were prepared to start a general war with Russia over a non-NATO country?  Hell, NATO - including us - isn't ready for that now, even after the invasion of Ukraine (and correctly so). NATO is a defensive alliance, not one prepared to initiate a war with Russia.

Bottom line, the idea that Biden could or should have prevented this invasion by using a direct military threat in the area is not well-considered. 

It's nothing more than a "manufactured" failure you are attempting to lay on Biden.