• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Putin & Russia

Mikey10 said:
Best way of generating an uprising. They’ve become used to all the trappings of western life. They’re not going to like going without them - nor will they like being persona non grata all over Europe.

There will be a few more sun loungers available in the Canaries this summer.
Click to expand...

Not sure you really have a handle on how the average Russian lives. Or what happens if more than one person protests in public in Russia. The average Russian salary per month is £374.35 says Google. Would like to see you living off that!
 
SpurMeUp said:
Not sure you really have a handle on how the average Russian lives. Or what happens if more than one person protests in public in Russia. The average Russian salary per month is £374.35 says Google. Would like to see you living off that!
Click to expand...

Which is 12 times higher than when putin took over. Life expectency and standard of living has increased aswell.
 
Craig_J said:
Best we've ever had to offer to counteract Russia is sanctions - but we're so frightened of harming our own GDP's that these never stay in place for long.
Click to expand...
Historically, economic sanctions has never worked. It rarely does anything to alter a regime's politics or actions. In fact, in most cases it's counter productive, as it serves to make the affected country fight even harder, and establish a feeling of "them vs us".

Economic sanctions are easy to implement, but serve little purpose other than as a political statement. It mostly affects the general population, rather than the political and economic elite, and does little, if anything, to alter a regime's politics or warfare.
 
Kandi1977 said:
Historically, economic sanctions has never worked. It rarely does anything to alter a regime's politics or actions. In fact, in most cases it's counter productive, as it serves to make the affected country fight even harder, and establish a feeling of "them vs us".

Economic sanctions are easy to implement, but serve little purpose other than as a political statement. It mostly affects the general population, rather than the political and economic elite, and does little, if anything, to alter a regime's politics or warfare.
Click to expand...

I think it's difficult to say if it works or doesn't. What's the "control group"? Would Putin be more or less likely to continue his attack if there weren't sanctions? Probably about the same. But at least there are some consequences.

For sanctions to have a real effect they must be sufficiently strong and in place over time. Those consequences must be experienced. Unfortunately it's mostly experienced directly not by the leaders, but by the population.

What other options would you suggest? No sanctions as that makes Russians fight harder? Then what?
 
braineclipse said:
I think it's difficult to say if it works or doesn't. What's the "control group"? Would Putin be more or less likely to continue his attack if there weren't sanctions? Probably about the same. But at least there are some consequences.

For sanctions to have a real effect they must be sufficiently strong and in place over time. Those consequences must be experienced. Unfortunately it's mostly experienced directly not by the leaders, but by the population.

What other options would you suggest? No sanctions as that makes Russians fight harder? Then what?
Click to expand...
As I said, it's based on historic evidence, and who knows. North Korea have been under the most severe sanctions for over 50 years. Has that changed anything?

Sanctions must be targeted to affect the political elite and their ability to effectively govern their politic and actions, with minimal impact on the general population. How to do that is a question I don't have a good answer to.
 
Last edited:
Lilbaz said:
The part where she talks about doing previous invasions on the lead up to elections. That boosted his popularity.
Click to expand...

those can’t be compared to this one. The world pretty much done nothing with those other invasions.
 
Lilbaz said:
The part where she talks about doing previous invasions on the lead up to elections. That boosted his popularity.
Click to expand...

Putin doing this in part for internal popularity has been discussed here I think. A short term boost of the war at least can be made to look successful should be expected.

Most opinions I've seen here about potential lack of internal support for the invasion at home have been that as a medium to long term potential outcome. That is well aligned with what is said in the article I think.
 
Kandi1977 said:
As I said, it's based on historic evidence, and who knows. North Korea have been under the most severe sanctions for over 50 years. Has that changed anything?

Sanctions must be targeted to affect the political elite and their ability to effectively govern their politic and actions, with minimal impact on the general population. How to do that is a question I don't have a good answer to.
Click to expand...

Difficult to know for sure I agree. But that's different to haven't worked.

North Korea is a very different situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back