Tag Archives: freedom

“Sanctions”

Posted on by
Reply

European Union leaders are likely to approve a modest escalation in sanctions against Russia when they meet on Thursday to debate a response to the Kremlin’s annexation of Crimea…add new names to the list of 13 Russians and 8 Russia-allied Crimean leaders who the EU subjected to an asset freeze and travel ban on Monday….

What’s the matter with sanctions on Russia, the nation, too?  Things like freezing Russia out of the international banking system, withdrawing European support for the development of Russian oil and gas fields, stopping the transfer of associated technologies moving to get oil and gas—and coal—for Europe from sources other than Russia?  Moves to supply Ukraine with non-Russian energy?  Certainly such moves would sting Europe, as well, but Russia’s economy is no larger than Italy’s, and unlike Italy—and the rest of the EU—Russia has no economy outside its oil and gas exports.

Unfortunately, US’ “sanctions” are just as weak, and the Obama administration is just as timid in the face of Russian aggression.

Putin has, in fact, responded with sanctions of his own: he’s barring nine American government officials, including Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) from entering Russia.  This is an obvious, contemptuous parody of Obama.

Surrender, Again

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s Great Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, on the EU’s “response” to the Russian invasion and partition of Ukraine:

It’s important to send a very clear message that if there is further destabilization in Ukraine then there should be further wide ranging measures taken, and we’ve agreed tonight that we will task the European Commission to draw up those possible measures.

That’s it?  What about holding out for Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, Mr Prime Minister?

This is abject surrender.  It’s an insult to the courageous and strong British Prime Ministers of the past—Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher come to mind.  You, Mr Cameron, are unworthy of your nation.

Surrender

Posted on by
Reply

Under threat of sanctions from the US and Europe, the Russians have finalized their annexation of Crimea.  One of the targets of the US’ “sanctions,” Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, expressed his feelings about them in a tweet:

Comrade Obama, what should those who have neither accounts nor property abroad do? Have you not thought about it?  I think the decree of the President of the United States was written by some joker.

The “sanctions?”  They

freeze any assets the targeted individuals have under US jurisdiction, make it illegal for Americans to do business with them and discourage international banks and financial institutions from having relationships with them, administration officials said.  The officials, however, would or could not say if those targeted actually have assets in US jurisdictions.

Hence the joke.  Does anybody believe, given the length of time this administration has been nattering on about freezing personal assets that there are any left that we can “freeze?”  Other than the amateurs in the White House, I mean.

Meanwhile, Europe has done even less.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Tuesday that leaders of the Group of Eight world powers have suspended Russia’s participation in the club amid tensions over Ukraine and Russia’s incursion into Crimea.

Travel bans and the freezing of a few personal bank accounts—yeah.  That’ll show ’em.

And echoing John Kerry’s pleas to Putin not to take US actions personally; we really don’t mean to hurt your feelings, ” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier bleats that sanctions must leave “ways and possibilities open to prevent a further escalation that could lead to the division of Europe.”

Also meanwhile, Ukrainian government officials met with US lawmakers pleading for military aid—not troops, but arms and ammunition.

“They wanted arms,” [one of the US] lawmaker[s] said, “even recognizing that it could be cited by Putin as an excuse, a provocation for further military action by him.  They said Putin’s goal has never been Crimea; his goal is Kiev.”

But this administration already has said, “No.”

For all of this abject surrender in the face of Russia’s naked aggression, though, President Barack Obama is happy to meet with terrorists, directly and personally.  He even insists that any “peace” agreement be based on Israel’s pre-1967, and so wholly indefensible, borders.

In the final meanwhile, watch Iran and their nuclear weapons program and the People’s Republic of China and their territorial grabs in the East and South China Seas.

No War is Painless for Either Side

Posted on by
Reply

But the war Russia is waging against Ukraine, and against Western values generally (against little things like the right of the citizens of a sovereign nation to govern themselves, the right of the people of a sovereign nation to run their economy their own way, the right of the citizens of a sovereign nation to hold their own, fair votes) can only hurt Russia in any serious way, if only Western leaders can find the courage to stand with Ukraine in a more meaningful and direct fashion than merely sitting courtside cheering the Ukrainians and clucking their tongues at the Russians.

There’s little to do, militarily, in the near term, but there are a number of devastating economic things that can be done, and these things will have their effect immediately and in the near and middle term (there’s unlikely to be a need for far term effects, but those would remain from the steps that can be taken now).  Such steps include

Treasury and State departments can much more aggressively target Russian banks and trading firms for their alleged involvement in such areas as arming Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or developing Iran’s nuclear program.  [To which I add Treasury and State can much more aggressively target the Russian banking system for its involvement in a nation committing this naked aggression against a sovereign country.  No special reasons are needed.  Full stop.]

Additional steps also can be taken, as I and others have outlined already.

Western leaders are fearful, though, and looking for bloodless solutions to an affair that’s bloody by its nature:

The US and other leading Western powers are focusing on individual, targeted sanctions because broader economic sanctions could directly harm Western businesses and lead Moscow to make good on its threats to retaliate against businesses from the countries pushing sanctions, according to current and former officials.

What these Nervous Nellies are ignoring, though, is that while Russian retaliatory sanctions will, indeed, hurt those Western businesses, Russian sanctions “would inevitably hit [Russia] like a boomerang.”  Russia, quite literally, has no economy beyond its oil and gas exports without those Western businesses and Western investments in Russia.  On top of that, as Western (read: US and Canada) oil and gas production and export increase, with special attention initially to exporting to Europe and Ukraine, and as prices drop from those increases, Russia would lose that remaining vestige of its economy.

And be unable to sustain its forces in Ukraine.  At that point, a suitable treaty would have Russia formally renouncing all claim on any territory outside the borders of the Russian Federation, canceling its lease on the naval base in Sevastopol and withdrawing all of its military units from Crimea, and removing all of its military and quasi-military units away from the Federation’s European borders by a distance of at least 200 miles.

More Governance by Diktat

Posted on by
Reply

Rule by law, not rule of law.  Here‘s the latest Obama installment.

The president plans to make the announcement [ordering Labor to expand overtime pay requirements to include millions more workers] on Thursday at the White House, a senior administration official confirmed to Fox News. Though the administration has claimed previous executive actions had bipartisan support, officials are acknowledging that this particular move [does not.]

These aren’t blue-collar jobs covered by “collective bargaining” agreements—union contracts—either.  Now, managers and executive officers of companies will be…covered: fast-food restaurant managers, loan officers, computer technicians, and more.

There’s not even a pretense of union-management mutually agreed compensation structure in this latest government move—the Federal government is dictating to businesses how they must conduct their businesses, the Federal government is dictating to businesses how they must structure their internal costs.

No market forces allowed.  And if the law doesn’t let the Federal government do what it wants to do to us, the Feds (not us) will change the law, and the Feds will change it with, or without, our permission.

What’s next?  It’s a truism, that if something becomes—or is made—more expensive to have, buyers will buy less of it.  If labor—blue- or white-collar—is made more expensive, businesses will retain/hire less of it.  Look for slowed hiring and outright management staff reductions, either in people retained or in salaries paid to make room for the mandated overtime increases.

Then, look for this administration to change/write its own law to mandate that salaries and wages can never be reduced, and that once hired, an employee can never be terminated.  Businesses, after all, are jobs welfare programs in the Progressive mind.