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

US quietly urges more use of Russia fertilizer to ease food crisis

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 427 posts

Re: US quietly urges more use of Russia fertilizer to ease food crisis

#321

Post by tshaddox »

brandonmenc wrote: post #110
tshaddox wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what are you suggesting? That Putin ought to be allowed to do literally anything he wants because if we tried to stop him he might nuke everyone?

> allowed to do literally anything Uh, yeah? If you have nukes you can pretty much do whatever you want, short of launching them at another nuclear power. That's just like, reality. Remember this the next time everyone bellyaches about "unfair sanctions" or whatever when some country even hints that they're pursuing a nuclear program.

Well I appreciate your commitment to your position, but that’s patently absurd.

Re: US quietly urges more use of Russia fertilizer to ease food crisis

#322

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

klibertp wrote: post #223
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easily avoided! OK, now let's hear how it could be "easily avoided".

Wouldn't selling Crimea and recognizing the breakaway republics as countries work? It might be unacceptable, but it's definitely simple...

OK you can have the Sudetenland! (please stop there)

OK, you can have Czechoslovakia! (stop there, please)

OK, you can have Poland.

...France?

You see how this doesn't work anymore.

Re: US quietly urges more use of Russia fertilizer to ease food crisis

#323

Post by Jcowell »

tshaddox wrote: post #82
Jcowell wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes? Is there any indication, given Putin’s back to a wall that he would not order nukes as a final fuck you ?

Then what are you suggesting? That Putin ought to be allowed to do literally anything he wants because if we tried to stop him he might nuke everyone?

I’m suggesting that outright war can be disastrous. That if we’re to take out Putin, it would need to be in a way that would not prompt him to Nuke any part of the planet. Personally I’m in favor of internal strife within the Russian government or assassination. Anything that does not give him the chance to leave a spiteful gift.

Re: US quietly urges more use of Russia fertilizer to ease food crisis

#324

Post by jimbob45 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #317
jimbob45 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The party in power is...about to get walloped according to polls. I think this is the most overblown talking point right now. In the most favorable wet dream scenario for Republicans where every tossup goes their way[0], they're still only going to hold a 56-44 Senate lead over the Democrats. That's not filibuster-proof and certainly isn't the doomsday scenario that everyone keeps predicting. Keep in mind that Repub…

It's not filibuster-proof, and it's even less veto-proof. But it would let the Republicans set the legislative agenda, and nothing would pass without their approval.

But that's basically true right now. The Democrats aren't getting anything done without the approval of Manchin and Sinema and still wouldn't post-2022.

In 2014, the Republicans held 54 Senate seats after the election. In the very worst case for 2022, we're back to 2014. However, if you actually go look at the upcoming races for this year, it seems much more likely that we'll end up closer to a 50/50 split given how weak many of the Republican candidates are.

The apocalypse scenario would be either party acquiring 67 seats in the Senate (to overrule presidential vetoes), which would obviate any need to win the presidency. However, anyone claiming that the Republicans are going to win 67 seats in 2022 is simply wrong.

Re: US quietly urges more use of Russia fertilizer to ease food crisis

#325

Post by simonblack »

anm89 wrote: post #251
nostromo wrote: post #27

The US government has completely lost the ability to act strategically. Biden is currently in Saudi Arabia begging for more oil production, meanwhile he's blocking measures to increase North American oil production. So, instead of fixing our own problem with inflation, we're asking one of the worst regimes on Earth for help and enriching Russia with higher prices simultaneously. Even if you support greener energy, li…

There's an amazing essay on this: https://archive.ph/D9YWr It feels bad to us to have these ridiculous politicians who spend 95% of their time on theatrical in fighting as the US has for the last ~15 years but in terms of first order effects, it doesn't really matter. Like the risk of something like a kinetic civil war is still roughly zero in the US. But the problem is, no one actually believes that there is any nee…

Like the risk of something like a kinetic civil war is still roughly zero in the US.

To us people on the outside, listening to US people denigrating each other on the web, it seems to us that it's 50-50 whether the US will be involved in a Civil War or a big peer-to-peer International War first.

Re: US quietly urges more use of Russia fertilizer to ease food crisis

#326

Post by belorn »

ayngg wrote: post #165
nostromo wrote: post #27

The US government has completely lost the ability to act strategically. Biden is currently in Saudi Arabia begging for more oil production, meanwhile he's blocking measures to increase North American oil production. So, instead of fixing our own problem with inflation, we're asking one of the worst regimes on Earth for help and enriching Russia with higher prices simultaneously. Even if you support greener energy, li…

This entire thing has been some kind of bizarre politics induced self flagellation. Regardless of whether or not you think it is right or wrong, it has been no secret for decades that this conflict would be an outcome of Ukraine alignment with the west, yet the west continued to pursue it even after 2014, even with the huge increased dependency on Russian and Ukrainian resources while limiting domestic investment in…

> At the end of the day, we are going to get a global recession and mass food insecurity and starvation in the global south for what?

If you are asking what the west nations got in exchange of making the economy dependent on cheap oil and gas from Russia, the answer is pretty simple. They got money. Politicians got political credits at the time from being anti-nuclear, and infrastructure wise they gained short terms budget savings by not replacing existing heating infrastructure that depend on burning gas. The cheap oil also helped keeping air traffic and shipping traffic cheaper, and the cheap artificial fertilizers created from Russian natural gas made food production cheaper.

At the end of the day we traded independence in exchange for cheaper fossil fuels, and we went into dependency without having a backup plan.

Re: US quietly urges more use of Russia fertilizer to ease food crisis

#327

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #276
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It hurts the Russian, but the Russian lived in the Soviet Union and survived the Crazy 90s. They can suffer way more than Westerns spoiled by prosperity. From the Mongol invasions to WWII to the Soviet Union, Russians have a lot of experience with collective suffering and deprivation.

Yes, but why? Why do these people have to suffer all the time? One reason I heard my Russian friends repeating is that "it's a bit country so we need a strong ruler to keep it together". But history shows this is not true. Also a federation of states like the USA would probably work better than the current setup where a short guy from Moscow is sending Buryat boys to die in a country they haven't seen before.

History does not show this is true.

Russia has historically been invaded by such people as Genghis Khan(actually his grandson, Tamerlane, Napoleon, Charles )I forget which one) of Sweden, and Hitler.

The USA on the other hand is protected by two oceans and has not had a foreign army on the continent since 1815.

Re: US quietly urges more use of Russia fertilizer to ease food crisis

#328

Post by cpursley »

MrRiddle wrote: post #311
cpursley wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Russia has so far demonstrated that it isn’t capable of much on that front. Russia is weeks, perhaps days, away from consolidating the Donbas. An area larger than the UK and one of their primary objectives. > Currently Russia has only managed to weaken and isolate itself. Russia is coming out of this with multiple new trade partnerships, financial payment integrations and military alliances.

People don’t realize Donbas is Ukraine’s last real line of defense and their only stronghold. After it falls, and it will soon, it’s a matter of siege and patience. Ability to counterattack will be completely removed.

After Donbas falls, if history is any lesson - the political situation in Ukraine will implode quickly. We might see a military coup and whoever takes over come to an agreement with Russia.

Re: US quietly urges more use of Russia fertilizer to ease food crisis

#329

Post by simonblack »

kingofpandora wrote: post #278
themitigating wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So "do this or we'll invade"? Why does it matter if a NATO country is on the border anyway? In the age of ICBMs, stealth bombers, and drones is the real concern that some large NATO force would march over the border for a land invasion of Russia?

The US hasn't exactly dropped the Monroe Doctrine.

And yet doesn't recognise other countries' "Monroe Doctrines". I'm waiting for the Chinese to declare their version of the Monroe Doctrine forbidding Western Nations from East Asia. Imagine the screams from the US.

Re: US quietly urges more use of Russia fertilizer to ease food crisis

#330

Post by cpursley »

juve1996 wrote: post #319
cpursley wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU and other buyers of Russian commodities seem to be paying those fudged numbers as we speak.

Of course - through necessity. But this will force them to move away and look for other options. You can go ahead and congratulate them on their short term "victories", but long term, I don't see how this benefits them.

Russia can find new customers before EU can find new suppliers (at least regarding natural gas), which is precisely why we're seeing increases in energy costs.
Post reply on HN