Russia threatens to dump the dollar

[Jukai]

It would hurt them but I doubt they'd collapse. Russia isn't stupid. I'm sure they knew that this would all happen.

Well, I don't think it's going to happen at all, sooo...

 

[Zankou]

How do you think it ends up being a right-wing thing, though? The CFR and Jews/bankers are conspiring to steal all of our wealth and manipulate us so we should ... cut their taxes, fight to deregulate banks, stop feeding poor children, and cut education budgets? Seems like the left would have a lot more to offer nutball CTers. In America, I think it's because of white identity politics.

I think it ends up being a right-wing thing because the CT runs so deep that alleged "oppose Them through the Federal gov't" movements are seen as actually just another control mechanism for Them; the subversion of the modern nation state is simply too deep. Again, far left positions argue precisely the same point.

The interesting thing is that the standard leftist critique would largely agree; starting point for any reasonable observer is that the steering wheel and shift lever seem to have been disconnected from the car. Even as I mock CTer attempts to explain things in terms of an evil cabal, I often concede the accuracy of their pessimism towards the political structure of modern national/int'l politics; democracy has largely become farcical as an alleged mechanism for controlling the political economy. Nobody controls it anymore, and certainly nation states have no credible say. In essence, I think moderate leftism's analysis is fundamentally correct in many particulars, but not nearly pessimistic enough about human nature and the degree to which capitalist interests have co-opted state mechanisms of political action. By contrast, far leftist groups are (in my view incorrectly) much more optimistic about human nature, and similarly pessimistic (in my view correctly) about the degree to which capitalist interests have co-opted state mechanisms of political action.

Right wing groups tend to be hostile towards any state action because they, rather rightly in my view, see all mechanisms of modern state action as fatally compromised by their slavish obeisance to "Them." Granting any increase in state control will not significantly benefit you, it will almost entirely benefit Them. In other words, the traditional leftist belief in the state as a bulwark against capitalist depredation -- reversing exploitation of the poor -- is wrong because in an era of increasing internationalism the weakened nation state has proven increasingly incapable of resisting subversion. The theoretical leftist approach of banding together in solidarity is simply capitulation to such subversive forces, in such a scenario, and the better approach is to cast off government chains as much as possible and free individuals.

What is particularly interesting to me is how democratic nation states seem to be having a crisis of populist legitimacy at the moment. This crisis is shaking up the world order. In some respects, it's similar to what we saw in the 1930s. People believe that the democratic nation state is fundamentally compromised by its subservience to int'l interests. The evident populist solution is not to turn to the nation state and pursue democratic action to get more benefits for "Us," as advocated by a traditional leftist approach, but rather to turn against it via populist NATIONALIST revolution.

Fascinating stuff. Again, very reminiscent of the 1930s in many respects.

 

[FIMN]

I think it ends up being a right-wing thing because the CT runs so deep that alleged "oppose Them through the Federal gov't" movements are seen as actually just another control mechanism for Them; the subversion of the modern nation state is simply too deep. Again, far left positions argue precisely the same point.

The interesting thing is that the standard leftist critique would largely agree; starting point for any reasonable observer is that the steering wheel and shift lever seem to have been disconnected from the car. Even as I mock CTer attempts to explain things in terms of an evil cabal, I often concede the accuracy of their pessimism towards the political structure of modern national/int'l politics; democracy has largely become farcical as an alleged mechanism for controlling the political economy. Nobody controls it anymore, and certainly nation states have no credible say. In essence, I think moderate leftism's analysis is fundamentally correct in many particulars, but not nearly pessimistic enough about human nature and the degree to which capitalist interests have co-opted state mechanisms of political action. By contrast, far leftist groups are (in my view incorrectly) much more optimistic about human nature, and similarly pessimistic (in my view correctly) about the degree to which capitalist interests have co-opted state mechanisms of political action.

Right wing groups tend to be hostile towards any state action because they, rather rightly in my view, see all mechanisms of modern state action as fatally compromised by their slavish obeisance to "Them." Granting any increase in state control will not significantly benefit you, it will almost entirely benefit Them. In other words, the traditional leftist belief in the state as a bulwark against capitalist depredation -- reversing exploitation of the poor -- is wrong because in an era of increasing internationalism the weakened nation state has proven increasingly incapable of resisting subversion. The theoretical leftist approach of banding together in solidarity is simply capitulation to such subversive forces, in such a scenario, and the better approach is to cast off government chains as much as possible and free individuals.

What is particularly interesting to me is how democratic nation states seem to be having a crisis of populist legitimacy at the moment. This crisis is shaking up the world order. In some respects, it's similar to what we saw in the 1930s. People believe that the democratic nation state is fundamentally compromised by its subservience to int'l interests. The evident populist solution is not to turn to the nation state and pursue democratic action to get more benefits for "Us," as advocated by a traditional leftist approach, but rather to turn against it via populist NATIONALIST revolution.

Fascinating stuff. Again, very reminiscent of the 1930s in many respects.

Good post.

 

[ben236]

Now YOU are being dodgy. Is your counter-point "fuck Russia, right?"

Obama and Putin have been having their own little dick measuring contest since Syria. The US doesn't think too highly of those who oppose them on the global stage. If anything, this is more about the US sending a message to Putin to toe the line rather than them doing the EU's bidding because the EU is afraid of Hitler.

Good grief, it was chronological. It correlates to the entire discussion of the thread. I didn't always need queue cards to be able to debate with you, Ben. It used to be much easier.

Okay numbnuts, why would I think that Russia would drop the dollar if I don't think that sanctions will be imposed? You can't go on and say that I think that Russia is going to drop the dollar when I don't think that... Because I don't think the hypothetical of sanctions being imposed is going to happen.

I'm not a big fan of when people state that I hold positions that I had clearly stated that I don't hold.

Did you not realize my nuke comment was a direct comparison to dropping the dollar? It wasn't meant to be taken literal?

It's a shitty comparison.

Dropping the dollar wouldn't be anywhere near as grave as dropping a nuke would be. And sanctions would probably hurt Russia a lot more economically than the bombing of a warship would hurt them militarily.

 

[ben236]

Show me some time you correctly predicted something other than the status quo.

Jack hedges his bets all the time.

The economy is improving and unemployment is going down = "It's because the stimulus is working as I predicted."
The economy is not improving and unemployment is stagnant/going up = "It's because there's not enough stimulus as I predicted."

 

[Jukai]

Obama and Putin have been having their own little dick measuring contest since Syria. The US doesn't think too highly of those who oppose them on the global stage. If anything, this is more about the US sending a message to Putin to toe the line rather than them doing the EU's bidding because the EU is afraid of Hitler.

The Ukraine isn't a US issue. It was between the EU and Russia. America did not have to join into this conflict.
So, your stance literally is the US saying "FUCK Russia."
Gotcha. Thanks.

Okay numbnuts, why would I think that Russia would drop the dollar if I don't think that sanctions will be imposed? You can't go on and say that I think that Russia is going to drop the dollar when I don't think that... Because I don't think the hypothetical of sanctions being imposed is going to happen.
I'm not a big fan of when people state that I hold positions that I had clearly stated that I don't hold.

Look, I literally know all this... You're not correcting me on anything. It is you who is getting confused. I don't know what to do, I'm going to try and use real small words.
You don't think America is going to sanction Russia, I get that... but let's say that if America did, then it would be things like visa bans and freezing Russian accounts. It would be lightly damaging to the Russian economy, but mostly more of a bunch of fuck you efforts. The worst America could do would be to prevent American companies to do business with Russian companies, but that would likely not happen on anything outside of a very small scale because it would hurt the American economy.
Now, you have said, that if America follows through with these sanctions (and Europe shockingly will do the same, weird right?), Russia will retaliate by dropping the dollar. You have said that Russia will retaliate by getting rid of something that a) they are dependent on and will be forced to completely redesign their economy while taking a huge hit in almost every sector of their economy, especially the stocks as we've already seen and b) won't actually hurt America that much

So... yes... I am really fucking confused about your logic, Ben.

It's a shitty comparison.

I agree that it was a shitty comparison, but it definitely was a comparison and the fact that you didn't even realize that makes me want to bail on this conversation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack hedges his bets all the time.

The economy is improving and unemployment is going down = "It's because the stimulus is working as I predicted."
The economy is not improving and unemployment is stagnant/going up = "It's because there's not enough stimulus as I predicted."

This is a lie.

 

[ben236]

The Ukraine isn't a US issue. It was between the EU and Russia. America did not have to join into this conflict.
So, your stance literally is the US saying "FUCK Russia."
Gotcha. Thanks.

Yes... And Syria wasn't a US issue, Libya wasn't a US issue, Iraq wasn't a US issue. When has something not being a "US issue" ever prevented the US from getting involved?

Russia has had close ties with Syria and even Iran. They tend to be friendly with most countries in the region that the US is opposed to, and was a major pain in their side with regard to the handling of Syria. Given US foreign policy, it is in their interest to minimize Russia's influence as they are essentially a competing superpower in that region.

Look, I literally know all this... You're not correcting me on anything. It is you who is getting confused. I don't know what to do, I'm going to try and use real small words.
You don't think America is going to sanction Russia, I get that... but let's say that if America did, then it would be things like visa bans and freezing Russian accounts. It would be lightly damaging to the Russian economy, but mostly more of a bunch of fuck you efforts. The worst America could do would be to prevent American companies to do business with Russian companies, but that would likely not happen on anything outside of a very small scale because it would hurt the American economy.

Now, you have said, that if America follows through with these sanctions (and Europe shockingly will do the same, weird right?), Russia will retaliate by dropping the dollar. You have said that Russia will retaliate by getting rid of something that a) they are dependent on and will be forced to completely redesign their economy while taking a huge hit in almost every sector of their economy, especially the stocks as we've already seen and b) won't actually hurt America that much

So... yes... I am really fucking confused about your logic, Ben.

I wouldn't equate the selling of some bonds and asking to be paid in a different currency to the complete redesign of an economy. So I don't know what you're going on about there. As for the EU imposing sanctions, I'll believe it when I see it. But I doubt it.

And are you really unable to see how your post completely mislabeled what my position was?

I agree that it was a shitty comparison, but it definitely was a comparison and the fact that you didn't even realize that makes me want to bail on this conversation.

It was pretty clear that it was a comparison. My response was that no they would not drop a nuke (which dropping the dollar is nowhere similar to), but they would retaliate (which you seem to be implying that they wouldn't if the US imposed sanctions). My response was completely in line with addressing the comparison in the context of the discussion we were having.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Right wing groups tend to be hostile towards any state action because they, rather rightly in my view, see all mechanisms of modern state action as fatally compromised by their slavish obeisance to "Them."

I'm still not seeing this. Food Stamps, UI and Pell grants are "compromised" by obeisance to the people controlling things behind the scenes? It's not only that that doesn't make sense; I can't see how anyone would buy it. Like I said, in America at least (I don't know enough to say about other countries), you can't understand that craziness without understanding the extent to which the "right" gathers support by playing on white identity politics.

Granting any increase in state control will not significantly benefit you, it will almost entirely benefit Them.

Again, if you're actually talking "state control" whatever that means, maybe (not really, but it's plausible). But if you're talking about specific programs (like SNAP and UI), not only is that not true, there's no way anyone could believe it.

What is particularly interesting to me is how democratic nation states seem to be having a crisis of populist legitimacy at the moment.

Again, speaking only about the U.S., it's nowhere near crisis levels. It's a major annoyance the way Tea Party idiots prevent rational policy responses to our problems, but they still cause that annoyance by winning elections.

This crisis is shaking up the world order. In some respects, it's similar to what we saw in the 1930s. People believe that the democratic nation state is fundamentally compromised by its subservience to int'l interests. The evident populist solution is not to turn to the nation state and pursue democratic action to get more benefits for "Us," as advocated by a traditional leftist approach, but rather to turn against it via populist NATIONALIST revolution.

Fascinating stuff. Again, very reminiscent of the 1930s in many respects.

I do see some similarities to the 1930s. Seems like inequality is at its breaking point, though I believe that a lot of the reforms we've seen in the past few years (the ACA especially) will reverse that trend going forward.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

This thread is amusing. Everyone knows Russia aint gonna do shit or have sanctions imposed on them but they are arguing to the death about what might happen if something they know won't happen actually happens.

Tag team match Crowded & Ben v Jack and Jukai.

 

[Jukai]

Yes... And Syria wasn't a US issue, Libya wasn't a US issue, Iraq wasn't a US issue. When has something not being a "US issue" ever prevented the US from getting involved?

Russia has had close ties with Syria and even Iran. They tend to be friendly with most countries in the region that the US is opposed to, and was a major pain in their side with regard to the handling of Syria. Given US foreign policy, it is in their interest to minimize Russia's influence as they are essentially a competing superpower in that region.

Wait, are you saying that the US does not have and doesn't want to increase its presence in the Middle East? Is that what you are saying?
Syria is definitely an American issue. America wants the entire Middle East to be one big American ally. This has ALWAYS been the case. The Middle East is one big proxy between the US/Saudi and Russia/Iran.

The Ukraine is completely different. I think you know better, too.

I wouldn't equate the selling of some bonds and asking to be paid in a different currency to the complete redesign of an economy. So I don't know what you're going on about there. As for the EU imposing sanctions, I'll believe it when I see it. But I doubt it.

And are you really unable to see how your post completely mislabeled what my position was?

Really? Dropping billions of dollars from their reserve currency and trying to replace it with their 0.028-to-the-dollar currency isn't going to require a redesign of their economy? Switching out the currency they use for oil and coal isn't going to require a major overhaul logistically and technologically, not even mentioning the redesigning of all existing contracts?

Did you read what happened to the ruble on Monday?

It was pretty clear that it was a comparison. My response was that no they would not drop a nuke (which dropping the dollar is nowhere similar to), but they would retaliate (which you seem to be implying that they wouldn't if the US imposed sanctions). My response was completely in line with addressing the comparison in the context of the discussion we were having.

I never said Russia wouldn't retaliate. I said they wouldn't drop the dollar.

 

[Jukai]

This thread is amusing. Everyone knows Russia aint gonna do shit or have sanctions imposed on them but they are arguing to the death about what might happen if something they know won't happen actually happens.

Tag team match Crowded & Ben v Jack and Jukai.

In fairness, I have zero tickets in my queue at work so I have nothing to do but argue hypothetical bullshit right now.

 

[ben236]

Wait, are you saying that the US does not have and doesn't want to increase its presence in the Middle East? Is that what you are saying?

Syria is definitely an American issue. America wants the entire Middle East to be one big American ally. This has ALWAYS been the case. The Middle East is one big proxy between the US/Saudi and Russia/Iran.

The Ukraine is completely different. I think you know better, too.

The Ukraine is exactly the same. It's about Russian influence around the globe that the US wants to limit. The US would love to see the Ukraine distance themselves from Russia and join the EU as much as possible because it means it's one extra ally for the US, and one fewer ally for Russia. As far as the US is concerned, the more former soviet countries that distance themselves from Russia and join the west the better.

Really? Dropping billions of dollars from their reserve currency and trying to replace it with their 0.028-to-the-dollar currency isn't going to require a redesign of their economy? Switching out the currency they use for oil and coal isn't going to require a major overhaul logistically and technologically, not even mentioning the redesigning of all existing contracts?

Did you read what happened to the ruble on Monday?

Who ever said that they had to change it with the ruble? Why not the Euro? Which European countries have plenty of.

I never said Russia wouldn't retaliate. I said they wouldn't drop the dollar.

How else could they retaliate exactly? Other than selling US bonds and dropping the dollar, what else can Russia really do from an economic standpoint? Militarily they'd have plenty of options other than dropping a nuke.

 

[Ruprecht]

It is kind of ironic, because the right-wing CT position is basically the same default worldview now held by the populist masses throughout the world. Russians, Middle Easterners, South Americans, disenfranchised white Americans ... by far their dominant world view is right-wing CT, not leftism in the sense of trans-national solidarity. The masses understand world history as being explained by "Them", who interfere and control events to "Their" evil ends in a consistent global pattern. Almost nothing can be done about this except to pierce the veil and recognize the hidden truth that the "controlled ordinary world" is conspiring to conceal. AKA gnosticism.

This is why I say the true dominant modern religion is not Xtianity, atheism, or Islam. It's gnosticism, appearing in the form of CT. How this relates to the more analytical and atheistic leftist traditions of analyzing capitalism v. socialism is an interesting subject that I haven't fully thought through. You could think of the populist CT gnosticism as sort of a degraded nationalist version of traditional leftist critiques of capitalism, replacing (1) capitalism as an impersonal causational process with (2) an anthropomorphic view that tries to explain world events as the "intentions" of hidden "actors." In some sense they are structurally similar, it's just that the second approach tends to be a lot stupider and subject to willful self-delusion than the first.

This same dynamic has existed in the past, of course. Where leftists would neutrally criticize unnamed "bankers" and "capitalists," the right wing CTers would say much the same thing except substitute "Jews" and "CFR."

I think it ends up being a right-wing thing because the CT runs so deep that alleged "oppose Them through the Federal gov't" movements are seen as actually just another control mechanism for Them; the subversion of the modern nation state is simply too deep. Again, far left positions argue precisely the same point.

The interesting thing is that the standard leftist critique would largely agree; starting point for any reasonable observer is that the steering wheel and shift lever seem to have been disconnected from the car. Even as I mock CTer attempts to explain things in terms of an evil cabal, I often concede the accuracy of their pessimism towards the political structure of modern national/int'l politics; democracy has largely become farcical as an alleged mechanism for controlling the political economy. Nobody controls it anymore, and certainly nation states have no credible say. In essence, I think moderate leftism's analysis is fundamentally correct in many particulars, but not nearly pessimistic enough about human nature and the degree to which capitalist interests have co-opted state mechanisms of political action. By contrast, far leftist groups are (in my view incorrectly) much more optimistic about human nature, and similarly pessimistic (in my view correctly) about the degree to which capitalist interests have co-opted state mechanisms of political action.

Right wing groups tend to be hostile towards any state action because they, rather rightly in my view, see all mechanisms of modern state action as fatally compromised by their slavish obeisance to "Them." Granting any increase in state control will not significantly benefit you, it will almost entirely benefit Them. In other words, the traditional leftist belief in the state as a bulwark against capitalist depredation -- reversing exploitation of the poor -- is wrong because in an era of increasing internationalism the weakened nation state has proven increasingly incapable of resisting subversion. The theoretical leftist approach of banding together in solidarity is simply capitulation to such subversive forces, in such a scenario, and the better approach is to cast off government chains as much as possible and free individuals.

What is particularly interesting to me is how democratic nation states seem to be having a crisis of populist legitimacy at the moment. This crisis is shaking up the world order. In some respects, it's similar to what we saw in the 1930s. People believe that the democratic nation state is fundamentally compromised by its subservience to int'l interests. The evident populist solution is not to turn to the nation state and pursue democratic action to get more benefits for "Us," as advocated by a traditional leftist approach, but rather to turn against it via populist NATIONALIST revolution.

Fascinating stuff. Again, very reminiscent of the 1930s in many respects.

Well, the far-left has collapsed. Neoliberal economics have been dominant for decades , and rather than meet the challenge of globalised production, unions have been steadily declining in membership and relevance.
The effective axis of the left versus right position on this is largely as you say, whether global (or at least supranational blocks of) authority can reign in the depredations of international capital, or will only exacerbate them.
...and as you mention about the 30s, right-wing populism and economic crisis are old acquaintances.
So we have "post-postmodernism", seeking to delineate the limits of relativism and establishing boundaries within a pluralist setting.
The difference with the US is that it has such a strong history of CT and Radical Right groups and literature catering to isolationist, anti-globalist and anti-government ideology. Even US Christian eschatology reflects this.
It's those loaded concepts (gold buggery, anti-federalism, NWO, end the fed etc) which I see RT hitting on. Mind you, as another effect of globalisation, we get weird, often nonsensical (because Australia's history and setup is completely different) repetition here (The Liberal Party recently copied the scaremongering campaign about the debt limit... and then raised it :icon_lol.
Of course it's also amusing to see anti-authoritarian propaganda from an authoritarian state like Russia, and support for increased American isolationism as Russia reasserts global influence.
It's boggling that anyone can give any credence to something so transparent.

 

[Zankou]

I'm still not seeing this. Food Stamps, UI and Pell grants are "compromised" by obeisance to the people controlling things behind the scenes? It's not only that that doesn't make sense; I can't see how anyone would buy it. Like I said, in America at least (I don't know enough to say about other countries), you can't understand that craziness without understanding the extent to which the "right" gathers support by playing on white identity politics.



Again, if you're actually talking "state control" whatever that means, maybe (not really, but it's plausible). But if you're talking about specific programs (like SNAP and UI), not only is that not true, there's no way anyone could believe it.



Again, speaking only about the U.S., it's nowhere near crisis levels. It's a major annoyance the way Tea Party idiots prevent rational policy responses to our problems, but they still cause that annoyance by winning elections.



I do see some similarities to the 1930s. Seems like inequality is at its breaking point, though I believe that a lot of the reforms we've seen in the past few years (the ACA especially) will reverse that trend going forward.

I think the point being made is that converting the government into an authoritarian "oikos" is not necessarily the win-win it is portrayed as. To state the obvious, slaves were given free food, lodging, and healthcare. Crappy food, lodging, healthcare, relative to their masters. There are very few oppressive regimes that are not, in large part, premised on setting the hook through seizing control of distributing key social resources. Food stamps the path to freedom? Uh, well, I do think it's a bit more complicated than that; it's better to have food than starve, but let's not kid ourselves about certain aspects of the reason why the slave is getting bread, and how that distribution works as part of the overall political economy. These factors are not so simply segregated.

Now the slave analogy is intended to be over-the-top extreme, but illustrates how distribution of goods to society is just as commonly a tool of political domination, suppression, and exploitation as the reverse. It isn't necessarily done from kindness, and its existence often serves malign interests who are subverting political opposition of any more meaningful kind. You talk about white Americans and the ACA; their fear, of course, is that their present high-quality health care (obtained through individual employment) will slowly convert into state-mandated garbage healthcare, while elites enjoy top-level healthcare. A lot of ifs in that fear, sure, but it's not irrational in my mind; we all know health costs must be decreased, we all know that ACA is intended to universalize health care under Fed control, etc. If you view the Feds as the corrupt tool of interests who do not give a fvck about the white middle class (apart from meaningless sops like social posturing), you aren't going to be happy about that. Ever gone to the AAA for your automobile registration? Ever gone to the DMV? Enthused about the DMV, are you?

Unlike the third world, I don't think there's any serious chance of a populist revolution in modern Western nations, because people jammed full of cheap calories and with access to cable television, rarely revolt, with one exception: Unemployment. If unemployment gets high enough, then you see a possible populist revolt. Like Egypt. In rich countries, money will be spent to drop unemployment long before that happens. In countries that have fallen into financial crisis ... it gets much more interesting.

I do not foresee any such financial crisis in the future of the United States, at least not over the next couple decades.

 

[Zankou]

Btw, my overall point is that these things work in complicated ways in the overall context of a functioning political economy, ways that often subvert the individual pieces. Just as immigration and affirmative action helped destroy labor unions. Etc. There is a sort of gestalt level at which you ask whether working for particularized benefits within an overall political framework is not, itself, counterproductive because of what you are doing to the political economy at a larger scale.

Not to be a historical dork about it, but it's kind of like when the Mexican government deliberately invited white settlers into Texas to help defend against the horrifying Comanche menace; the Comanches were beating the Mexicans silly. Well, after epic battles the white settlers defeated and tamed the Comanche menace. Of course they also took over Texas in the process, incidentally, but we can't be expected to think about macro effects all the time. Were the Mexicans asked in 1820 about the benefits of Texas immigration, they'd give you a rather different answer than they gave in 1840.

 

[Jukai]

The Ukraine is exactly the same. It's about Russian influence around the globe that the US wants to limit. The US would love to see the Ukraine distance themselves from Russia and join the EU as much as possible because it means it's one extra ally for the US, and one fewer ally for Russia. As far as the US is concerned, the more former soviet countries that distance themselves from Russia and join the west the better.

They absolutely would like to see Russia's influence decline, but Ukraine holds no strategic value. It would be far more valuable for EUROPE if the Ukraine joined the EU.

Who ever said that they had to change it with the ruble? Why not the Euro? Which European countries have plenty of.

They could try and switch to the currency of Europe, radically strengthening Europe and making it more likely that their satellites are going to defect. Of course, since every euro is worth 50 freaking rubles, they'd need a lot more than 10 billion dollars and a 1.5% interest rate increase to stop their currency from plummeting the next time the US threatens something and their stocks drop.
I guess this makes sense to you, though, since you truly believe this is only an American venture and that Europe is totally ok with what Russia is doing (even though they claim sanctions are coming).

How else could they retaliate exactly? Other than selling US bonds and dropping the dollar, what else can Russia really do from an economic standpoint? Militarily they'd have plenty of options other than dropping a nuke.

Pretty much exactly what the US is doing. Freezing businesses, denying visas, stop selling us gas and oil, etc. etc.

 

[NelmarksGhost]

I don't know if other people have come across this, so thought I would share. It seems the brits want to stand up to aggression, but not at the sake of losing russian business. This all comes from a secret government document photographed at 10 Downing street.

The document said Britain should:

 

[Kirku]

I don't know if other people have come across this, so thought I would share.

This was reported on 3 days ago. They might still hold the same position or they might not. This is a really fast moving incident and a lot has changed in those 3 days. Guess we'll see if/when the EU actually does something even vaguely decisive (who am I kidding?).

 

[ZroC]

It's very interesting that Russian propaganda directly targets petrodollar conspiracy theories.
It basically means that they've recognised the John Birch Society style of far right anti-government hoo ha as a new base for useful idiots.
A populist counter to US actions, and presumably a replacement for the old Soviet/Far-Left alliance.

Or maybe it implies those "CTs" aren't really just theories after all. The leader of Russia is basically calling it out, and people here are trying to say he doesn't know what he's talking about. That's why you can never get through to those "skeptics." Even when the leaders themselves reveal it they will always try rationalise it in some other way. Putin is well aware of the petro-dollar conflict which has been taking place, and the first thing those skeptics do when he brings it up is to try rationalise it in another way which is totally out of context. Just last year the skeptics were laughing at the chance of wars involving China and Russia, now the possibility is a growing fact, but will those people admit their mistake? No, they'll say of course we already knew, then try explain what's happening in a way which is out of context with reality, when he's already one year behind the supposed "CT'er" who told him about the crisis long before it even became relevant to the mainstream media.