US imposes sanctions on Russia over cyber-attacks
bbc.com
bbc.com
Probably the reason china escapes is China has more leverage over the world than Russia, and Russia has an order of magnitude more leverage than Iran. That’s why the response diminishes in that order.
But it seems like most commenters don’t want any response. Escalation has dangers, but How are they sure appeasement will go well? I mean, it literally was a major cause of WW2. Basically a tightrope act is needed. I’m not going to armchair it.
These are all fairly self-limiting conflicts. China is interested in Taiwan (maybe) and a defensible path to the Pacific and Indian oceans. Russia is interested in having a buffer state against NATO.
If you want to counter these objectives, then there is going to be a cost. But the cost of these objectives being realized is nowhere near that of WW2, so an armed confrontation is not worth it. The truth is that there isn't really any good solutions here. Both of these powers are in a situation where they feel that if they do not secure these strategic advantages there is a risk of disaster. The answer is either convince them that this is not the result in order to lower what cost they are willing to incur to achieve them, find a way to create an equilibrium between the US and those other powers, or use military dissuasion (which will be incredibly costly and might be impossible).
In the end this is pretty much just a very difficult position. But you should not compare tactics that do not rely on the threat of massive violence to appeasement, none of these powers is willing to do anything near WW2.
“ There is no risk of "WW3". No one is about to try to invade the entirety of Europe and kill 150+ million people, enslaving a billion. These are all fairly self-limiting conflicts. China is interested in Taiwan (maybe) and a defensible path to the Pacific and Indian oceans. Russia is interested in having a buffer state against NATO.”
It both severely overplays the expectations people had in the early 1930’s, hindsight is 2020. And underplays the goals of China and Russia. And it doesn’t acknowledge what’s already happened like invasions and labor camps.
>And underplays the goals of China and Russia. And it doesn’t acknowledge what’s already happened like invasions and labor camps.
There is no interest for either Russia or China beyond that. A war in Eastern Europe is not in the interests of Russia, because of NATO and existing military capabilities. What is in the interests of Russia is to keep Ukraine out of NATO. The invasion of Crimea and the Donbass only happened after Ukraine expressed intent to join the EU and NATO, not before.
As far as labour camps, penal labour for unjustified offenses is simply par for the course in the Earth of 2021. It is sad. And it has nothing to do with the assertion that China somehow wants to invade all of Asia or something equally ridiculous.
They did essentially rip up the agreement in Hong Kong, and intend to completely dominate the entire South China Sea with their nine dashed line manifest destiny type claims, and they are trying to re-educate away Uighur culture.
So no, they haven’t declare they want to invade half of Asia and it’s unlikely they will do that, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t on a very risky path.
And just because I focused on China here, doesn’t mean Russia is squeaky clean.
To note, the nine dash line is just a negotiation trick. It used to be an eleven dash line and a ten dash line also, and Chinese diplomats admitted that they don't seek territorial waters beyond 12nm of land. It's the same strategy as was used in the claims with Mongolia or in claims to the arctic - make vague grandiose claims then walk them back once you secure your strategic advantage.
What China is really after is to control the waters that allow its supply lines to be secured. They see themselves as vulnerable to a blockade and their main enemy is the dominant sea power.
It has some risk, certainly. But that risk is bounded well below the risk of a confrontation between two superpowers, and importantly is not ideological or irrational but driven by simple calculus that the present situation leaves China to be too vulnerable. That's so insanely far from WW2 that isn't not even close. Any comparison to that effect is hyperbolic. It's much closer to the establishment of the Monroe doctrine both in maximum impact and in motivation. The same applies to Russia. None of them want to start invading a dozen other countries, rather they have a national interest they want to protect and act as far as is necessary to achieve that.
By rose tinted I mean, to name but a few points, Completely ignoring The other nations of bordering the South China Sea and their claims and ignoring Ukraine sovereignty because of historic borders, and ignoring the fact that china literally is creating land to expand their 12nm radius around disputed shoals.
Why did you gloss over all that? It doesn’t feel like an objective assessment when those substantial and important facts are just completely ignored. And bringing up the number of dashes shown on maps while ignoring the actual issues, why!?!?!?
Both for Russia and China, yeah sure viewed with that style of rose tinted glasses then sure you’re right about everything.
Same thing for China, they definitely have disputes in the SCS and their position is untenable.
I just don't see how you go from that to saying that WW3 is imminent. These kinds of things are more or less par for the course in geopolitics. All in all all of these things have lead to less instability and death than the first few months of the Iraq war, and that was far from WW3 too.
Arguably the US the aggressor anyway. The US made a number of promises to first Soviet Union to end Cold War and then to Russia. Pretty much all of them have been broken by the US or not renewed after promises. The US took major advantage Russian weakness.
The US extend the boarder of its nuclear weapon protect zone to a few 100 miles of one of the major Russian cities. And realistically had Russia not acted, Georgia might be part of NATO now.
And almost certainty the US is constantly 'cyber-attacking' Russia as well.
Not to mention that punishing the whole Russian population is immoral way of response.
What the US has done to Iraq the last 70 years isbeyond inexcusable
Yeah we do cyber attacks and many other fairly inexcusable things. But to claim USA is the aggressor in this cause is highly debatable.
And I’m not saying appeasement will cause ww3, I’m saying it’s had a past history of not working in a spectacular fashion, so it’s weird to default to it.
> Russia invaded Ukraine
The Crimea was part of Russian empire for 100s of years and even in the Soviet Union it was part of Russia, not Ukraine. It was a pure political move to increase his own power in the central comity by Khrushchev to move it into Ukraine. This was done without any asking the population. Then it defaulted to Ukraine because of the way the Soviet Union broke up.
It should be part of Russia. Now the way it happened is certainty sub-optimal and warrants a political response and negotiation but the US should not exclude recognition of Crimea as a diplomatic option.
> Yeah we do cyber attacks and many other fairly inexcusable things. But to claim USA is the aggressor in this cause is highly debatable.
I was playing devils advocates. But seriously, if you are Russian its easy to construct a case.
And from my Swiss perspective who the good guy is, very much depends on the situation, I don't just default to USA good, Russia bad. Both governments do a whole lot of evil stuff.
> And I’m not saying appeasement will cause ww3, I’m saying it’s had a past history of not working in a spectacular fashion, so it’s weird to default to it.
But that's the point. The US did not 'default' to it. The US took major actions that were directly against opposed to multiple signed treaties with Soviet Union and Russia. When Russia tried to argue the point, they were dismissed and ignored. Despite strong objections by Russia and multiple red lines, NATO still went ahead with expansion and would have continued if Russia had not responded.
What would the US do if Russia attempted to put a nuclear cover over Cube, Mexico and Hawaii? I think we know.
>But that's the point. The US did not 'default' to it.
Who said anything about the US defaulting to it? I said the commenters here are defaulting to it by the majority being against sanctions that delineate what they are in response to.
People can debate to the end of time what the montagues and capulets did 3 decades or a hundred years ago. I am not interesting in wasting my time like that, especially if the debate is under the premise that if someone held land a hundred years ago then they are welcome to invade and that any response is bad.
If that is the case, there’s be massive conflicts all over the world while the borders realigned. And why 100 years? Why not 200? Or 500?
But these are rhetorical, I don’t foresee any constructive purpose to continuing this thread.
The question is why 60 years as part of Ukraine makes it right for Ukraine to control it. Israel has controlled the West Bank for the same amount of time and most people don't suggest they have the right to it.
Do want the US to forever sanction and fight Russia in order for Ukraine right to require Crimea? To rain economic destruction on Russia for the next 20-100 years in until they finally give Crimea back to the Ukraine?
Recognition of Crimea for Russia should be used as a barging chip in future negotiations.
> Who said anything about the US defaulting to it? I said the commenters here are defaulting to it by the majority being against sanctions that delineate what they are in response to.
Being against sanction doesn't mean they are against any response. Just against dumb ones.
Again something you don't address is that harsh sanction primary hurt the innocent population. Usually profit criminals in the country. And as any historian political economy will tell you, have been largely ineffective.
FBI chief slams Chinese cyberattacks on U.S., calls it ‘one of the largest transfers of wealth in human history’ https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/fbi-chief-slams-chinese-cybe...
Intel officials call China "unparalleled priority" among world threats https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/intel-officials-call...
Exclusive: Secret NSA Map Shows China Cyber Attacks on U.S. Targets https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/exclusive-secret-nsa-ma...
Federal prosecutors on Wednesday announced charges against five Chinese hackers accused of breaching more than 100 companies, think tanks, universities and government agencies around the world. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/16/us-charges-chinese-...
US formally warns China is launching cyberattacks to steal coronavirus research https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-formally-warns-china-is...
China needs its customers.
Considering that geopolitics can be interesting to HN, we don't discuss enough some topics here. In case with Russia we have something that looks like a violation - in US and by US authorities - of US laws against corruption and some international agreements. We also see conversion of Russia into a more autocratic state, which is both step back from "old times" of 1990-2000 and different from Cold War, when USSR had a different structure of goals than the Russia now.
The goal is not to somehow improve the country by motivating the population to do positive political change. The goal is economically damage the country to make it's strategic situation worse. This is done by harming the citizens of the country economically.
But of course, the human cost is astronomical.
It is all so made up, innocent until proven guilty.
Also, is reacting to provocation escalation? If you let other countries abuse you, is that de-escalation? I mean, it could be, but there will be people who argue both sides of both positions. I don't know exactly what would de-escalate each situation. Most likely it varies by participants involved. However, it is not obviously the case that reacting to provocations with sanctions is escalation.
I don't understand what drives Biden? Is this about ideology?
This is about the US wanting to look and act like they still dominate.
The whole thing with the US is that it is basically secure with friendly neighbors and before China was the largest economy in the world by a huge margin for 100 years.
The amount of absurdly idiotic mistakes the US made are mind-blowing. The US response to Mosaddegh taking the oil from the British for example was utterly idiotic. The British literally sold the US on the idea that Mosaddegh was possibly a communist.
The US walked out of the conference to settle Vietnam and that eventually (with more dumb choices). The Vietnam war itself serves as one of the single most idiotic strategic decisions ever.
The US Iraq policy looks like the action of a complete mad man.
US just spent 20 years in Afghanistan fighting an enemy that had basically nothing to with the reason they invaded originally. While some of the people they invaded for originally are in Yemen and get cover from the US supported air-force.
And lets ignore what a complete and other fuckup Wilson made in WW1.
The problem is, non of those are actually relevant, for a country the size of the US, 20 years uselessly throwing money down the drain Afghanistan. Who cares, a gigantic economy and a private army, what is a couple 100 billions more in debt. If you don't use conscription the Anti-War movement is not big enough to matter.
Or its 20 years of hopelessly trying to prevent North Vietnam from winning only to become basically allied with them not so long after. What is a couple of trillions spent and a coupe 10ks of casualties.
You basically end up with gigantic mess that makes little logical sense.
Currently Russian forces are amassing near Ukraine. Why put Russia in a situation where they don't care about Western reactions as it is already as bad as it can get? I mean what stick is Biden going to use if they actually invade?
Three Top Russian Cybercrime Forums Hacked
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/03/three-top-russian-cyberc...
Russian spooks would find a way into the US no matter what.
If I visit Iran, I can not go to USA. I think US should apply the same rules, and cleanse themselves from all Russian influence. All Russian developers, tech, companies...
Also do the same for China...
These sanctions aren't about influence. It's really just about trying to weaken Russian economically. The US government seems to think that Russian and Chinese influence is not that big of a problem, and they are probably right.
This whole thing smells like manufactured consent.
Russia simply cannot be targeted by secondary sanctions though. It's just a much bigger economy that has a much bigger impact in worldwide trade. So the maximum possible extent before governments start clamping down on secondary sanctions is much lower.