4 ms·

Have economic sanctions ever succeeded in altering the behavior of authoritarians? It pretty much always just ends up impoverishing the normal people of a count

Have economic sanctions ever succeeded in altering the behavior of authoritarians? It pretty much always just ends up impoverishing the normal people of a country, which authoritarians do not care about.

datavirtue 5y ago
The sanctions cause economic depression which lead to the citizens revolting because they can't obtain food or other necessities. And sever job loss. That's the reason for sanctions--to cause internal pressure. It can work. The state-run media can't put a spin on your child's empty belly.
- gruez 5y ago
  >The state-run media can't put a spin on your child's empty belly. It can, however convince that your child's empty belly is caused by evil westerners, and the country needs to stand behind Dear Leader to fight against them.
- kumarvvr 5y ago
  It can. It has and it will. When the childs belly is empty, it is easier to fall to propaganda that sanctions have deprived them of food.
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    > it is easier to fall to propaganda that sanctions have deprived them of food. It's not propaganda that the sanctions have deprived them of food. It's the real actuality.
donw 5y ago
Ultimately, this is going to backfire. Hard. China and Russia are already working on a SWIFT replacement. All they need to do is not try and use their banks as weapons -- which they don't need to for obvious reasons -- and they're immediately in-line to replace US-centric banking. "Debanking" in any form is a short-term play with long-term consequences. Were I running a government, I'd be wondering when the US is going to decide that we need a more "democratic" regime, and taking steps to enhance my country's fiscal autonomy as much as possible. Belt-and-road is going strong in both Africa and South America. Nobody really trusts China as a partner at this time, but the Party[1] in the US has done a great job of convincing the world that Washington is less reliable than Beijing. [1] The GOP and the Democrats function as a single-party state. Obama beat the war drums just as hard as Bush.
- cute_boi 5y ago
  For sure, sanctions are a double-edged source. It sends a signal that they will be on the list. And, that is not a problem if the US was an impartial candidate, but it isn't. It does everything for its greed, not for humanitarian reasons. China and Muslims were no problem to them as long as US and West could exploit them. Currently, India is developing and I have aforethought that the US will surely take "swift" action like they are doing with China. And let's not get started on BRI projects. People always forget they should look at the reasons why Africa is still poor today. They should check for IRS policy and its impact on politics. US and West have no interest in development in Africa. But, when China goes to Africa makes good roads, the US starts to have a problem. If the US is so altruistic, why don't they go to Africa and develop their continent? I think the US just wants them to be poor so, it can enjoy its hegemony forever.
  - donw 5y ago
    > It does everything for its greed, not for humanitarian reasons. China and Muslims were no problem to them as long as US and West could exploit them. I mean, yeah, that's like saying that water is wet. Every "humanitarian reasons" organization is a smoke screen for some kind of power play. > I think the US just wants them to be poor so, it can enjoy its hegemony forever. Nah, I think this is more stupidity than malice. The regime and its staff, in spite of all the travel and internships and all the rest, really are absolutely clueless about the way that the rest of the planet lives.
javagram 5y ago
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because of US sanctions on oil in 1941 - Japan attacked the U.S. just 5 months later as they needed the oil to fuel their war machine in China.
imtringued 5y ago
Economic sanctions do not replace diplomacy, they are just a different form of warfare. Russia's economy is on the verge of complete cripplement though. It is basically an oil state and an oil state without customers will soon be in massive trouble.

datavirtue 5y ago

The sanctions cause economic depression which lead to the citizens revolting because they can't obtain food or other necessities. And sever job loss. That's the reason for sanctions--to cause internal pressure. It can work. The state-run media can't put a spin on your child's empty belly.

gruez 5y ago
>The state-run media can't put a spin on your child's empty belly. It can, however convince that your child's empty belly is caused by evil westerners, and the country needs to stand behind Dear Leader to fight against them.
kumarvvr 5y ago
It can. It has and it will. When the childs belly is empty, it is easier to fall to propaganda that sanctions have deprived them of food.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  > it is easier to fall to propaganda that sanctions have deprived them of food. It's not propaganda that the sanctions have deprived them of food. It's the real actuality.

donw 5y ago

Ultimately, this is going to backfire. Hard. China and Russia are already working on a SWIFT replacement. All they need to do is not try and use their banks as weapons -- which they don't need to for obvious reasons -- and they're immediately in-line to replace US-centric banking. "Debanking" in any form is a short-term play with long-term consequences. Were I running a government, I'd be wondering when the US is going to decide that we need a more "democratic" regime, and taking steps to enhance my country's fiscal autonomy as much as possible. Belt-and-road is going strong in both Africa and South America. Nobody really trusts China as a partner at this time, but the Party[1] in the US has done a great job of convincing the world that Washington is less reliable than Beijing. [1] The GOP and the Democrats function as a single-party state. Obama beat the war drums just as hard as Bush.

cute_boi 5y ago
For sure, sanctions are a double-edged source. It sends a signal that they will be on the list. And, that is not a problem if the US was an impartial candidate, but it isn't. It does everything for its greed, not for humanitarian reasons. China and Muslims were no problem to them as long as US and West could exploit them. Currently, India is developing and I have aforethought that the US will surely take "swift" action like they are doing with China. And let's not get started on BRI projects. People always forget they should look at the reasons why Africa is still poor today. They should check for IRS policy and its impact on politics. US and West have no interest in development in Africa. But, when China goes to Africa makes good roads, the US starts to have a problem. If the US is so altruistic, why don't they go to Africa and develop their continent? I think the US just wants them to be poor so, it can enjoy its hegemony forever.
- donw 5y ago
  > It does everything for its greed, not for humanitarian reasons. China and Muslims were no problem to them as long as US and West could exploit them. I mean, yeah, that's like saying that water is wet. Every "humanitarian reasons" organization is a smoke screen for some kind of power play. > I think the US just wants them to be poor so, it can enjoy its hegemony forever. Nah, I think this is more stupidity than malice. The regime and its staff, in spite of all the travel and internships and all the rest, really are absolutely clueless about the way that the rest of the planet lives.

javagram 5y ago

Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because of US sanctions on oil in 1941 - Japan attacked the U.S. just 5 months later as they needed the oil to fuel their war machine in China.

imtringued 5y ago

Economic sanctions do not replace diplomacy, they are just a different form of warfare. Russia's economy is on the verge of complete cripplement though. It is basically an oil state and an oil state without customers will soon be in massive trouble.