Biden's bungled Russian sanctions

dukkha

Verified User
Washington’s earlier boasts of driving Russian President Vladimir Putin from power, destroying Russia’s capacity to make war and halving the size of the Russian economy look ridiculous in retrospect.

The world economy is reeling from supply shocks in energy and food provoked by Western sanctions on Russia. Monetary policy can reduce inflation only by forcing consumers to stop buying, which forces retailers to liquidate inventory at lower prices and crushes demand for raw materials – a cure that is worse than the disease.

Russia meanwhile earned a record €93 billion (US$97 billion) from energy exports during the first 100 days of the war, a Finnish study concluded. China and India, which refused to join Group of Seven sanctions against Russia, reportedly are buying oil at a discount of $30 to $40 per barrel, while American and European consumers are paying the full price.

Energy prices have become the main driver of G7 inflation

Biden underestimated the resilience of the Russian economy and the capabilities of the Russian military.

Climbing down off this ledge won’t be easy. It may be impossible.
Biden denounced Russia’s leader as a war criminal, averred that he couldn’t be allowed to remain in office and bragged that US sanctions would cut the Russian economy in half. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin claimed that the US would destroy Russia’s capacity to make war.

A compromise in Ukraine with significant territorial concessions to Russia – the only conceivable way to end the war – would humiliate Washington.

A negotiated solution to the Ukraine war, though, is not impossible.
Washington could continue to portray itself as the defender of Ukraine’s sovereignty while encouraging European leaders to do the dirty work and force Ukraine into negotiations with Moscow

France and Germany on February 15 asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to comply with the Minsk II agreement, then supported by Moscow, which would have given autonomy to Russian-speaking regions in the Donbas within a sovereign Ukraine.

At Washington’s prompting, Zelensky rejected a February 19 proposal from German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to avoid war. Michael Gordon reported on April 1 in The Wall Street Journal:

“Mr Scholz made one last push for a settlement between Moscow and Kyiv. He told Mr Zelensky in Munich on February 19 that Ukraine should renounce its NATO aspirations and declare neutrality as part of a wider European security deal between the West and Russia.
The pact would be signed by Mr Putin and Mr Biden, who would jointly guarantee Ukraine’s security. Mr Zelensky said Mr Putin couldn’t be trusted to uphold such an agreement and that most Ukrainians wanted to join NATO.

The hapless Zelensky did not invent the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine. He was given assurances by Washington and London, which stepped up weapons deliveries
https://asiatimes.com/2022/06/biden-stares-down-from-ukraine-economic-ledge/
 
it’s possible that Biden’s instincts for political survival may take precedence over the ideological priorities of his Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, the architect of the 2014 Maidan Square coup that set the present tragedy in motion.
 
Ukraine likely lacks the combat power to expel Russia from all of its territory, and the momentum on the battlefield is shifting in Russia’s favor. The longer this conflict continues, the greater the death and destruction, the more severe the disruptions to the global economy and the food supply, and the higher the risk of escalation to full-scale war between Russia and NATO. Transatlantic unity is starting to fray, with France, Germany, Italy and other allies uneasy about the prospect of a prolonged war — especially against the backdrop of rising inflation.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy insists, not surprisingly, that “victory will be ours” and urges Ukrainians to “defend every meter of our land.” And Biden, even as he makes mention of the need for diplomacy, has so far been unwilling to caution Kyiv against those aims, instead affirming “I will not pressure the Ukrainian government — in private or public — to make any territorial concessions.” “We’re not going to tell the Ukrainians how to negotiate, what to negotiate and when to negotiate,” Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, reiterated this week. “They’re going to set those terms for themselves.”

But Washington has not only a right to discuss war aims with Kyiv, but also an obligation. This conflict arguably represents the most dangerous geopolitical moment since the Cuban missile crisis. A hot war is raging between a nuclear-armed Russia and a NATO-armed Ukraine, with NATO territory abutting the conflict zone. This war could define the strategic and economic contours of the 21st century, possibly opening an era of militarized rivalry between the world’s liberal democracies and an autocratic bloc anchored by Russia and China.

These stakes necessitate direct U.S. engagement in determining when and how this war ends. Instead of offering arms with no strings attached — effectively leaving strategy up to the Ukrainians — Washington needs to launch a forthright discussion about war termination with allies, with Kyiv, and ultimately, with Moscow.

he claim that Vladimir Putin will end his trouble-making only if he is decisively defeated in Ukraine is another fallacious argument that distorts debate and stands in the way of diplomacy. Writing in The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum calls for the “humiliation” of Putin and insists that “the defeat, sidelining, or removal of Putin is the only outcome that offers any long-term stability in Ukraine and the rest of Europe.” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin wants to weaken Russia “to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”

But this is wishful thinking, not strategic sobriety. Putin is poised to remain in power for the foreseeable future. He will be a troublemaker no matter how this war ends; flexing his geopolitical muscle and burnishing his nationalist credentials are the primary sources of his domestic legitimacy. Furthermore, humiliating Putin is risky business; he could well be more reckless with his back up against the wall than if he can claim victory by taking another bite out of Ukraine. The West has learned to live with and contain Putin for the past two decades — and will likely continue to have to do so into the next.
 
When Henry Kissinger recently proposed in Davos that Ukraine may need to make territorial concessions to end the war, Zelenskyy retorted: “It seems that Mr. Kissinger’s calendar is not 2022, but 1938, and he thought he was talking to an audience not in Davos, but in Munich of that time.” Biden himself asserts that “It would be wrong and contrary to well-settled principles” to counsel Ukraine on potential concessions at the negotiating table.

But strategic prudence should not be mistaken for appeasement. It is in Ukraine’s own self-interest to avoid a conflict that festers for years and instead negotiate a ceasefire and follow-on process aimed at concluding a territorial settlement.

The United States, its NATO allies, Russia, and the rest of the world have an interest in securing this same outcome — precisely why it is now time for Biden to set the negotiating table.
https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...end-the-ukraine-war-isnt-appeasement-00039798
 
sanctions that hurt the USA and unbounded weapons for war that keep Zelensky's delusions of victory alive
backed by Austin/Blinken/Nuland and the war crowd = bungled and dangerous
 
Financial Times is now admitting that the oil price cap scheme has been a complete failure.

“The EU's imports of Russian oil and gas continued to decrease steeply in the second quarter of this year, according to new data released by the EU's statistical office Eurostat.

The figures suggest the EU's sanctions on the trade of energy products in response to Russia's war in Ukraine are having a tangible impact.”


https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/...ian-energy-in-second-quarter-of-2023-eurostat
 
“The EU's imports of Russian oil and gas continued to decrease steeply in the second quarter of this year, according to new data released by the EU's statistical office Eurostat.

The figures suggest the EU's sanctions on the trade of energy products in response to Russia's war in Ukraine are having a tangible impact.”


https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/...ian-energy-in-second-quarter-of-2023-eurostat

China Bloc predicted that Western sanctions would hurt the West more than them....they turned out to be completely right.
 
Back
Top