Sergey’s whine of many sanctions by Brandon McKinney
I know this is a TLDR moment, but I was rather pleased with this comment I made on an article regarding Ukraine. I’d like to break down the pedantry of things said in order to extract the meaning.
Sergey Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy minister for foreign relations.
Let’s start here: he called the sanctions “meaningless, shameful, and disgusting.” This is all pure opinion.
Meaningless? In comparison to what? If it was ‘meaningless’ why is he so upset about it? It clearly has meaning and it evoked a response.
Shameful? For whom? Russia? You bet it’s shameful for them; that is the whole point of sanctions, to shame those who refuse to follow international law*.
Shameful to the USA? Only to whose who would rather go to war than use diplomacy.
Disgusting? By what definition? Taste, sound, sight, what?
Consideration? Ok, so Sergey is disgusted at sanctions. Well, they weren’t exactly designed to make people feel good.
Onto the rest of his quotes: “It will only intensify all the processes in Ukraine which it intends to change or stop,” Now this is a very crucial sentence and attempts to confuse but in fact reveals a truth. In essence, Sergey has said that Russia is going to punish Ukraine on purpose, because of USA’s sanctions. Let’s look at it closer.
“Processes in Ukraine.”
These would be the protests from pro-Russian militants that are assumed to be Russian Special Forces. Ukraine is currently trying to “stop” those protesters and trying to “change” the Ukraine constitution to allow more powers to Eastern regions. So, put it all together and it’s a stern warning that Russia intends to mess with Ukraine further as punishment for sanctions that it claims are “meaningless.” OH, BTW that means that Russia admits to interfering with Ukraine. Shhhhhh, don’t tell anyone!
Next: “It is yet another sign of a reckless behavior of the U.S. administration.” Supposition and false dilemma. He offers no examples. The use of “yet another” without any frame of reference is a way to pry into the guilt of any person who thinks, “oh, he’s talking about ‘that.'” Who knows what Sergey was referring to? For all I know he was referring to the church anointment of Senator Ted Cruz as a “King.” I sure call that reckless behavior! Sanctions are considered the most tame of punishments, so “reckless” is a massive overreach. Now openly stating that the US will fight militarily without even trying to set up any talks; THAT’S reckless.
Next: “No lessons are learned from the past.” A generalized statement that doesn’t apply to any specific person unless you “want” to “assume” he is talking about the “U.S. Administration.” I can say “assume” because there were NO pronouns in that sentence to refer to and no subject nouns used.
Next: “The U.S. does literally nothing to impress its cronies and clients in Kiev on whom there is full responsibility for constant deterioration of the situation in Ukraine.” Again, Sergey gives himself away.
The problem is Sergey is assuming he knows what DOES impress US’s cronies and clients. That reveals that he knows these people and knows what they want and the US isn’t giving them what they ask for. This is actually true because the interim government in Ukraine want harsher reprimands for Russia and the US is holding back.
I think Russia should say “thank you” to the US, actually. Now, Sergey says that the clients and cronies in Kiev are responsible for the deterioration of the situation in Ukraine.
Which situation is he talking about because there is actually more than one going on in Ukraine? Is he referencing the protesters in Donetsk? Is he referencing the elections in May? Is he referring to the Geneva agreement? He really needs to be more specific if he wishes to communicate his point.
Next: “This is what needs to be changed and not the policy of Russia.” Ok, so the “this” Sergey is referring to must be the impression the US Administration needs to make on it’s client and cronies. Why? because the last “thing” Sergey refered to was that US did literally nothing to impress, That is the only action you can change if you use a determiner like “this” after referring an event in a prior sentence.
One can’t assume he’s talking about the “reckless” behavior because that was referenced too long ago to be accurate. Nor can it refer to not learning from the past. Sadly, it also doesn’t refer to Sergey’s warning of messing with Ukraine due to sanctions. It is because of this last part that you can’t reference the entire dialog as “this.”
So there you go. Sergey needs some lessons on how to properly convey a message during a speech or interview. If it was written for him, then that person needs a new job.
Wondering about that * I put in an earlier sentence? It’s because if you say you’re going to abide by International Law, then you must. If you never said you would abide by international law, then you don’t have to respect it.
“Sergey’s whine of many sanctions” by Brandon McKinney is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://www.facebook.com/brandon.mckinney.31542/posts/10151985110806986.