What “isolate russia from the international community” means

07. April 2022

Today we’re dra­ma­ti­cal­ly esca­la­ting the finan­cial shock by impo­sing full blo­cking sanc­tions on Russia’s lar­gest finan­cial insti­tu­ti­on, Sber­bank, and its lar­gest pri­va­te bank, Alfa Bank,” a seni­or admi­nis­tra­ti­on offi­cial brie­fing repor­ters said.
Sber­bank holds near­ly one-third of Russia’s total ban­king sec­tor assets, the offi­cial noted, adding that the US has now ful­ly blo­cked “more than two-thirds of the Rus­si­an ban­king sector.” 

Second, the seni­or offi­cial announ­ced, “In align­ment with the G7 and the EU, we’re announ­cing a ban on new invest­ment in Rus­sia.” That will be imple­men­ted with an exe­cu­ti­ve order signed by US Pre­si­dent Joe Biden. 

The United Sta­tes won’t par­ti­ci­pa­te in G20 mee­tings that Rus­sia is par­ti­ci­pa­ting in, US Tre­a­su­ry Secreta­ry Janet Yel­len said Wednesday.

Spea­king at the House Finan­cial Ser­vices Com­mit­tee, Yel­len said she’d made that posi­ti­on clear to other finan­ce minis­ters in the group.

src: click

Pre­vent USD from ent­e­ring the rus­si­an eco­no­my, then (as the US) refrain from par­ti­ci­pa­ting in G20 mee­tings for als long as the ent­i­re world (G20) doesnt shun russia.

Oh, and its not true any­mo­re, that no one thinks that the Ukrai­ne can win - the Pen­ta­gon now insists, that thats pos­si­ble - in a war on which it is impos­si­ble to gage how long it will take:

Pen­ta­gon: “impos­si­ble” to know how long the war will go on, but Ukrai­ne can win


The US Defen­se Depart­ment says it’s “impos­si­ble” to know how long the war in Ukrai­ne will go on if not ended through diplo­ma­cy, but that Ukrai­ne “of cour­se” can win the war.


Mariu­pol is still not taken. He’s moved his for­ces out of Kyiv. He’s moved his for­ces out of Cher­ni­hiv. They haven’t taken Khar­kiv. They haven’t taken Myko­la­iv in the south,” Kir­by said. “So I think the pro­of is liter­al­ly in the out­co­mes that you’re see­ing every day.

src: click

Good news on Mariu­pol still not being taken, by the way - the city is now offi­cial­ly unre­co­ver­a­ble as an infra­st­ruc­tu­re: click

You can gage the unity of wes­tern posi­ti­ons by the fact, that the Atlan­tic coun­cil thinks, the Ukrai­ne needs more hea­vy weo­pon­ry, or the war will be over soon, the High Repre­sen­ta­ti­ve of the Uni­on for For­eign Affairs and Secu­ri­ty Poli­cy Josep Bor­rell is still in favor of ending the war soon but not at all cos­ts, and the Ukrai­ni­an government was liter­al­ly tel­ling the world for the first five weeks of the war, that for it to enter into high level peace talks all rus­si­an tro­ops have to vanish from the Ukrai­ne ter­ri­to­ry in the bor­ders of 1991, and then refrai­ned to “at least in the bor­ders befo­re Febru­a­ry 22nd on US TV (CBS afair)” which then nobo­dy cared to cla­ri­fy what that would mean, while then sta­ting they would need hea­vy wea­pons to dri­ve the rus­si­ans out ent­i­re­ly - or at least push them back signi­fi­cant­ly in the east, always while sta­ting, that peace talks are under way of cour­se. Oh, and that the chair­man of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff thinks that the con­flict will at least last several more years.

You see, with a unity of wes­tern posi­ti­ons as pro­noun­ced as this, one would think that an infor­med obser­ver should be able to gage what the goals for ent­e­ring mea­ning­ful peace talks would be in this sce­n­a­rio, befo­re ship­ping in more tanks into Ukrai­ne, as they would of cour­se only be used in a defen­si­ve capa­ci­ty, or that they at least would help to shor­ten the war in any mea­ning­ful sen­se but now that “win­ning” is on the table again, the Ukrai­ne government can sta­te more often, that it is inte­res­ted in peace­talks again. While the Pen­ta­gon “doesnt know” how long the war will last. In front of con­gress state­ments like “at least three years” are utte­red, and Bor­rell men­ti­ons, that we should end the war as soon as pos­si­ble, but not at all cos­ts. While a limi­ted esca­la­ti­on will redu­ce the long term cos­ts of war of course.

Mea­su­red in bloo­dy gum­my bears I think. Or world hunger.

One of the sin­gle grea­test aspects about utte­ring that your oppo­nent only under­stands dis­plays of mili­ta­ry power? It tilts any game theo­ry con­fi­gu­ra­ti­on so far into the “self inte­res­ted enti­ty” ran­ge, that all respon­ses beco­me pos­si­ble - while all of a sud­den, you are play­ing a zero sum game. But Ukrai­ni­ans could be win­ning though!

edit: Exclu­si­on from the UN Human Rights Coun­cil. src: click

Hinterlasse eine Antwort