'assets dries up'?

In the full quote, investor demand dries up:

Policy makers are stepping up efforts to shore up the ruble as investor demand for Russian assets dries up after President Vladimir Putin’s military forces took over parts of neighboring Ukraine.

The oligarchs don't care; most of their investments are well-diversified outside of Russia, including London real estate.

Singe the middle class by clamping down on visas for European vacations.

Despite the upward pressure on oil prices caused by the crisis, Reuters suggests that the already-slumping Russian economy may tip into recession.

Compare that to Russian-controlled media crowing just a month ago that "Russia follows the US and China as the third most attractive country for investors."

@4 Hey, I regularly have to visit Europe and I'm by no means middle class, how about that?
Sadly the rouble falling mostly hurts people like me. The rich don't keep their savings in doubles.

*damn, not doubles! Roubles! Thought I just saved the word.

No doubt they may have a price to pay, but:

1. Our moral indignation rings a little hollow after Iraq and I have to believe we'd do the same thing if a neighboring country of strategic importance (i.e. we had a military base there) had a revolution.

2. Devaluing a currency is not always bad... up to a point. China has been intentionally trying to do it for years and arguably we've tried to do it by printing dollars like there is no tomorrow. It makes the stuff you sell to other countries cheaper.

So, I think this is something where we need to rely on the EU to intervene and provide as much support as we can. They are most effected by Russian imperialism.

p.s. couldn't happen to a nicer country. They have quite a history.

@8 are you Russian? I dont get your point

@5: LOL you don't understand economics at all. A major currency loses 1.8% IN A SINGLE DAY? That is HUGE.

Angela Merkel remarks that Putin did not seem to grounded in reality when she spoke to him. Will anything matter to him at this point?

@5 @12 I believe Forex has stated that the Russian Central Bank had to inject something like $10billion US to help stabilize the ruble today

@10

This cannot be compared to the Iraq War (and I say this as someone who protested the Iraq War before and during it).

First of all the U.S. took it's time, courted many allies (UK, Denmark, Australia, etc), and made a case before the war to the UN (remember Colin Powell's bullshit UN speech about WMD?).

This is one country by itself taking over a foreign nation's territory, without warning, literally overnight. And these Russian troops aren't even in their uniforms.

This violates all sorts of international laws.

Again, I was against the Iraq War 100%. There were plenty of lies, propaganda and irresponsible decisions by the Bush Administration. But even then this is not the same thing.

@ 15 - Of course, it can be compared to Irak. That and every other American invasion of foreign, sovereign countries, all done strictly to preserve American interests (that is, if you know anything about history other than the lies you've been fed by your media and government).

"Courted many allies"? Please. The whole world except a few brown-noses was against it.

@8, 11: (@11, not sure if puddles is Russian, but he/she does live in Russia, per past comments—activity hidden, unfortunately) ...I do feel bad for the many decent people in Russia (400+ recently protested Putin's actions in Moscow), but all of us as citizens of whatever nations we live in must often bear individually the consequences of what our homelands do in the global community. Sometimes it's as abstract as a negative opinion; sometimes it's financial losses or restrictions on travel; sometimes it's as concrete as kidnapping and execution. Sometimes we vote differently; sometimes we need to resort to activism; sometimes we need to emigrate.

@11 Yes.

@16 ALL wars are done strictly to preserve a country's interests. They may or may not be justified but that is the ONLY reason a country goes to war. All countries (including whatever country you are from) and all wars are for that reason. If you think otherwise then you have been misled by your government and your media (see that accusation can be turned against you also).

Free English as a second language (American Version) lesson:
"The whole world except a few brown-noses was against it." is incorrect usage of the term "The whole world". Correct English would be on the order of "Most of the world, except for a few brown-nosers, was against it."

@ 19 - I haven't been "misled", I've always known that. I don't see what I wrote that may have led you to think I believe otherwise. It's the general American public that never seems to realize it. Americans still believe that their country goes to war "for democracy", "for freedom", and other blatant lies. And my comment wasn't an accusation, it was a statement of fact. It's obvious to anyone who gets their news from non-American sources that you are constantly being lied to, or else most of you would obviously stop approving all that is done in the name of your country. Everybody else knew that there were no WMDs in Irak, that Bush and his cronies had made that up. That's why nobody wanted to go to war with you there (except those few brown-nosers like Blair).

As for your American English lesson, it seems to me that if you say "most of the world" instead of "the whole world", you imply that there are exceptions other than the brown-nosers, since "most" already excludes some people. I'll admit I could be wrong, but I'll wait for a second opinion. You seem too angry to think clearly. And besides, I did mean "the whole world". Two or three idiots who happen to be their country's momentary leader don't count much in relation to 7 billion people.

@17 I know that unfortunately I might have to suffer the costs of our government's actions, it's just that that proposal seemed unnecessarily mean. It's quite easy to distinguish between the elite and normal people within a measure like this.

@22, you're right. I'm guilty of Othering, and I'm truly sorry.

@11, @8. It's hard to believe that Russians who are not rich and are not middle class regularly visit Europe. Getting a European visa is a big obstacle to most Russians (Americans and Europeans need visas to Russia, too, and they are a hassle). Most Russians don't have foreign passports and have never traveled outside of Russia. The same would be true for many Americans who are not rich or middle class--most don't have foreign passports and have never been abroad. Travel bans on Russians would primarily affect rich and middle class Russians, who are the main targets of the ban.

BTW, US Iraq's coalition included 34 countries, not a small number

@15. Completely agreed with you on Iraq. And yes, it was very different from Russia's occupation of the Crimea. Brendan Kiley is right saying "Crimea looks like the Sudentenland all over again".

Maybe Dan Savage should call for another DUMP RUSSIAN VODKA boycott. It's not like Russia is becoming less homophobic. Russian media used to call Ukrainian protestors on Independence Square Gayeuromaidan vs. Euromaidan--the name worked well for Russian audiences.

@24, this might be true in smaller cities but believe me at least people living in Moscow and St.Petersburg travel a lot even when I would never call them middle class. For one thing, many people have friends and family who have emigrated and visit them often. Getting a visa is also much easier recently than it was before.

Just my example: I live paycheck to paycheck but have to visit Europe regularly for personal reasons. These days it doesn't really take a lot of money unless you want a lavish hotel vacation. A visa ban would be my worst nightmare and I know that I'm not alone. I realize that writing here will not affect anything but please don't make judgments like this without knowing the actual situation.

Besides, even what you would call middle class is completely powerless here even though it's mostly they who go to the protests: the people ruling the situation are a bunch of extremely rich people most of whom are also politicians, and any measures should be aimed at them.

@ puddles, are you in a position to suggest things (specific actions and policies) that you think might be likely to help you and others like you, or at least do less damage to you and more to Russians with expatriated wealth? If not, that's understandable; if so, perhaps we can pass them on. You say above "it's quite easy to distinguish between the elite and normal people." Is that just social cues (ostentation in cars, jewelry, clothing, etc.), or could sanctions be somehow effectively targeted from afar? Or be limited to the diplomatic/trade level?

@30 Oh, well, what I meant, is that there are probably what, maybe a couple hundred corrupt officials, plus a few "journalists" working for the regime... (There was recently a case when one such journalist was publicly attacking a university student for taking a pro-Ukraine stance. Down to giving out her phone number on TV and calling for her to leave the country). In any case they are all public figures proudly brandishing their hatred of the west (which culminates in this potential war) and all its values (even though *many* of their children happily live in Europe etc. surrounded by all the evil gays). What I mean is that it can't be that hard to restrict the visa problems to them.

In any event, our main sanction will automatically be the economy without anyone's help. Not a specialist there but prices have been going up pretty fast recently and it obviously won't get better now. I mean, we import *so* *much* stuff.

@20, Actually, I am not now, nor was I then, angry. Please choose another,probably incorrect, emotion. When you use an absolute term such as "whole world" without the proper modifiers you can not then modify it with a relative term such as few. If your statement had been "Just about the whole world" instead of the way it was written I wouldn't have quibbled that way. As for the few brown nosers, it was actually far more than simply a few (which implies a number in the lower single digits) as the actual number that agreed, mostly without actually doing anything, was in the double digits. And those people who happen to be momentarily their country's leader DO count in relation to the relative political power of those 7 billion. I'd suggest getting some good books on how Geo-Politics works. There is a lot more to it than one person one vote at that level.