Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 326 posts

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#201

Post by d0mine »

brnt wrote: post #192
d0mine wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of the following statements are true: - Crimea became part of Russia before Texas became part of US - Crimea became part of Russia before (around the time) US independence - Kievan Rus' is older than Aztec Empire

Ah, I like this game! - Before the US, the colonies were English, French, Dutch, Swedish, etc. - Before the colonies, it was of course Native American land. - Before the Anglosaxons, Britain was Celtic. - Kievans are much older than Russians. Russia was created by a few Swedes forking the local Slav tribes. - Before Moscow, there were Poles Bulgarians and Mongols. Shall we go on?

that is the point.

Should British demand their colonies back?

Should Indians demand their land?

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#202

Post by La1n »

bloodm wrote: post #189
barrkel wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Russia annexes any Baltic states it's liable to trigger nuclear war. All the Baltic states are NATO members.

Doubt it. It would trigger a cold war II but not a nuclear war. The baltic states can not be defended militarily. If Ukraine were in the EU, would be a different thing.

Ukraine is not a Baltic state, the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) are all in the EU and NATO members. No way the EU would let that slide.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#203

Post by La1n »

bluecalm wrote: post #148
sschueller wrote: post #2

For the rest of the world this is a good thing. Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not? Image if it was Germany that used sanctions to prevent the US from building a pipeline to Mexico. Would you be ok with that?

I live in Poland and I am ok with US bullying others around because it increases stability even if we all have to pay for it. The problem with that pipeline is that Russia will get a way to cut off Ukraine and Poland without cutting Western Europe (their biggest customers). This increases chances of them invading rest of the Ukraine or maybe even Poland in the future. Without big bully to prevent countries doing deal…

>Without big bully to prevent countries doing deals that decrease stability in other countries we have no recourse.

The problem here is that many do argue right now that the US is doing this themselves and is a large factor in lots of instability in say the middle East.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#204

Post by _19qg »

rayiner wrote: post #160
lispm wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40000 and not 40,0000. Much is for the US and their military adventures, not for NATO or NATO-related things. It supports the US war machine. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, North Africa, ... Much of that has nothing to do with defending Germany, defending the US or defending NATO... The US and its allies/friendly countries currently outspend Russia approximitely fifteen times. If Germany would spend 2% of its GPP on milit…

Obviously since Germany isn’t currently under attack, German bases are used for other operations. But the German government doesn’t seem eager to get the US military out of the country, and has reacted negatively to Trump’s signaling in that direction. Recent events have convinced me that I was at least partly wrong about my previous view of the United States having bases all around the world. Europeans love to compl…

I don't think you have much insight into thoughts of European countries. What you claim was a response to Trump, is actually much more complex. There are different views in different countries and within them.

Germany is also no longer the front to the communist block - which no longer exists and only Russia is left as direct opponent. So it may make sense to have NATO defense moving east. Many Germans think that the US politics against Russia leads to nothing good.

What Trump does/says is fully inconsistent. NATo is obsolete. Then it is great. He wants to reduce military. Then record money flows into the military. He wants to get out of Iraq, then he blackmails Iraq to let the US stay. He uses kurds to fight against ISIS and then he hands them over to Assad...

The main political reaction in Germany to him is to have not too much changed and hope for a more rational US government.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#205

Post by philwelch »

incompatible wrote: post #56
philwelch wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I’m living in a world dominated by American hegemony. International institutions like the UN are valuable but when the other Western countries tried to set up a rules-based international order after WWI it only lasted 20 years.

It's world full of multilateral agreements: World Trade Organization, United Nations, Bern copyrights, Paris Agreement on climate, Geneva Conventions, nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Antarctic treaty, etc.

So how are those multilateral agreements doing, anyway?

The Geneva Conventions are an admirable code of conduct, but they don't in any meaningful way define international relations, since at least one belligerent in virtually every armed conflict since and including the Second World War has flagrantly flouted them. Countries that are decent enough to follow the Geneva Conventions don't get into wars with each other anyway. The Berne Convention similarly doesn't deter developing countries that pirate IP and shrug it off.

How did the UN work out in Rwanda? Why is it that the UN Human Rights Council typically contains most of the worst human rights abusers in the world? The UN can be a useful tool for addressing certain situations, but that typically only happens when someone--usually the US--makes a concerted effort of forcing the issue, as one of our most underrated presidents did in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Left on its own devices, it doesn't work.

The rest of the stuff likewise relies upon the US to make it work. The Paris Agreement is fundamentally untenable now that the US has withdrawn; not only does the US produce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, but they also provide the needed economic counterweight to push other non-compliant countries like China into compliance. And I don't think the Paris Agreement is the only instance of this.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#206

Post by bloodm »

lispm wrote: post #194
bloodm wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If Germany would spend 2% of its GPP on military, then it would approach Russia in absolute numbers, That would be crazy." It is her contractual obligation. Currently Germany does not have an Army anymore but a museum. How many tanks are operational? 100? Russia has 10.000...

There is no contract about it. Tanks? Not sure that this is our biggest concern right now.

Nato Membership is a contract.

Yes, Indeed. tanks are not the biggest problem. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/12/21/pepe-escobar-you-say-y...

PS: "Germany is only one of 19 NATO members that have not met the 2% GDP spending goal set at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales."

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#207

Post by Thorrez »

baybal2 wrote: post #109
linkregister wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ex-USSR fiefdoms, Russia included, are ran by very simple people, without any geopolitical ambitions. The people of Georgia, Crimea, and the rest of Ukraine would beg to differ.

How to say... Russians invasions are acts of war, squarely and simple, but they do so without any tinfoil "geopolitical conspiracy" in mind. There is no bigger "grand plan" to them than to an 8th century Viking raid: more subjects, loot, and territories to use to stage further invasions. Danes cared more for how tasty the British were, before they started to care about the British throne and court politics in the big…

> more subjects, loot, and territories to use to stage further invasions.

That sounds like a geopolitical ambition to me.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#208

Post by bloodm »

La1n wrote: post #202
bloodm wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubt it. It would trigger a cold war II but not a nuclear war. The baltic states can not be defended militarily. If Ukraine were in the EU, would be a different thing.

Ukraine is not a Baltic state, the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) are all in the EU and NATO members. No way the EU would let that slide.

I never said Ukraine is a Baltic state. Take out a map. Think about why the Baltic states can hardly be defended militarily. Think about what would be different if Ukraine were in the Nato (and a decent amount of Nato troops on the UA/RU border).

"No way the EU would let that slide." They EU has no ability in military things if the UK is out. The Nato would not let it slide but they also would not fight back to win it back. It would be cold war II.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#209

Post by La1n »

jariel wrote: post #64
taurath wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is this protection that the US provides other than ensuring the US would be drawn into a war between the EU and Russia? France has enough nukes to provide MAD protection.

"What is this protection that the US provides" The US has bases all over Europe, they spend a fortune on their own defensive tech, capabilities and leadership which Germany et. al. depend on, which acts as a massive deterrent, but also provides security partners with 'almost free R&D'. Also, the US specialises and practices so many things that are just far beyond the reach of pretty much all European forces. The abil…

>If the US simply 'did not exist' - Russian Imperialism would reach just about as far as in the Soviet era

We can speculate a lot, but that's a this is, speculation. This comment and a lot of others smell of American exceptionalism to me as a non US citizen.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#210

Post by d0mine »

HenryBemis wrote: post #198
d0mine wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of the following statements are true: - Crimea became part of Russia before Texas became part of US - Crimea became part of Russia before (around the time) US independence - Kievan Rus' is older than Aztec Empire

Heh, I cannot Reply to brnt's post so I am using 1 lvl higher. My favourite examples are ancient Greece, Rome, ancient Mongolia, etc. Cherry picking moments in time to redefine borders is dangerous to say the least. Give the Italians half Europe and Near East? Give Greece everything from South Italy (Magna Grecian) all the way to Afghanistan? Crimea was part of Russia, true. Give Italy what it had first and then we w…

How many people speak Greek in Crimea? How many are native Russian speakers?
Post reply on HN