Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Bloomberg Television" channel.

  1. 5
  2. 5
  3. 4
  4. 3
  5. 3
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10.  @flochforster22  Eh, yeah, we're both making predictions; but I can't see yours as anything more than a miracle. I was memeing by claiming Russia's economy would collapse, but I do think it will face significant difficulties not seen since the collapse of the USSR. Even assuming Russia has the capability to open up trade to the likes of Indonesia for cheap oil in its most eastern regions (it does not, Vladivostok is too tiny to even begin replacing trade with the West outside of many years of upgrading the ports) -that's all assuming that Russia can even provide such cheap oil. Saudi oil was always cheaper, and the centers of oil production are much easier to ship from Saudi Arabia than it is from Russia. Mostly because land routes suck in comparison to overseas routes. Like idk how else to break it down for you; the likelihood of Russia just automatically replacing trade with the West, even if it were feasible via making their oil extremely cheap -it would still take ages to set up the necessary steps for constant trade. You just don't seem to have a grasp how long it takes for trade centers to shift; you can't just will it into existence. It takes time. And at no point did I imply Asian nations would blindly follow the US. Europe doesn't even blindly follow the US. No, my point from the beginning was that they won't damage relations with the US by helping Russia -the cost-benefit analysis isn't there at all. China can at least make some of that argument with the strength of economy, but Russia? Sorry, but that's what is what I mean by saying "copism".
    2
  11. 2
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19.  @QueenMooSuko  You can interpret it that way if you want. You can also interpret Russia's invasion as strongarming the rest of the world into dealing with their actions. Either way, this crisis was precipitated by Russia's latest invasion with clear noises by the US that it would retaliate if it occurred. Russia overplayed its hand, expecting a complacent West. The funny part about your examples is that either nobody cares or there was just cause for the US' actions, meaning there is enough leeway for people to shrug their shoulders. That's kinda the point; if Russia had a semi-reasonable reason for invasion, then the backlash would not be so extreme. Even the WMD, lie if it was, was considered reasonable due to the years before no WMDs were found. A good casus belli does wonders to placate world opinion. The US understands this. Russia does not. Cope if you want, I don't care in this case since Russia is getting its just desserts after claiming they'd be fine and doubling down on this invasion. "Whats happening between Ukraine and Russia, should stay between Ukraine and Russia as far as they're concerned" Most nations feel that way when they are not affected by the results. Egypt cares a lot more about what's going on in Libya despite them not being literally involved. Russia also cares about the West's interactions with Ukraine despite not literally being involved too. So people everywhere get involved in each other's business, as long as it affects them some way. Fact is, even if the Kremlin's propaganda network overtime, the main fact of the matter is that Russia invaded an independent Ukraine. And thus all issues are stemmed from that -blaming other actors won't work.
    1
  20. 1
  21.  @QueenMooSuko  That's not what you implied last time. Now apparently countries do care when its neighbors? And yet Russia has been threatening Ukraine's neighbors consistently, so...? The veil of legitimacy, fair or not, is precisely what I'm talking about. Whether it be with the permission of international law or via the decrying of a foreign dictator; the world shrugs at the US' actions and mostly shrugged at Russia's actions too. But this was a step too far. Fact is that in terms of international law, most of the US' actions were perfectly legal with Iraq being a big exception. There was no major investigation in Iraq, genius; Saddam Hussein didn't allow it which allowed for the US to claim that since they were hiding something that they definitely had WMDs -which was a fair thing to claim. Also, the fact of the matter is that the Taliban supported Bin Laden so any talks of extradition was unnecessary; it was a legal war by every respect. As for Syria and Libya -both were legal for the simple fact of how the US acted -the former the US claimed to be jumping in to fight ISIS which was legal and fair. The latter was the US supporting a UN-sponsored no fly zone, which was legal and fair. Russia used the same strategies in some of its conflicts, and the US complained but didn't do anything in retaliation. Because that's how conflicts have to allowed. And to put it bluntly, the US in every respect is morally superior to Russia. At least the US actually protects the peace of multiple regions across the planet -Russia has only protected Syria. Maybe. Some Syrians are bitter in how they were bombed to hell like in Aleppo.
    1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1