3 ms·

I'm sorry that this is the case, but, I'm pretty sure that's the idea. At this point, your government is not acting with anyone's best interest in mind, includi

I'm sorry that this is the case, but, I'm pretty sure that's the idea. At this point, your government is not acting with anyone's best interest in mind, including that of its citizens. It's up to the rest of the world to make it clear what the consequences are for that, in the hopes that if your leaders don't change their mind on their own, you'll do it for them.

Aunche 5y ago
That's the propaganda used to justify sanctions, but historically, no government has been overthrown due to sanctions. The sanctioned country can just use the sanction as an example of hegemony, which isn't exactly inaccurate. What sanctions do accomplish is that they give you an avenue for more aggressive intervention. An example of this is America's sanctions against Imperial Japan before WWII.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > That's the propaganda used to justify sanctions, but historically, no government has been overthrown due to sanctions. Since the idea is to get governments to change their behavior and being overthrown is just one of the extreme tail risks that play in to motivating that behavioral change, that's neither surprising nor inconsistent with sanctions working.
- mcguire 5y ago
  And the alternatives to sanctions are?
  - ivraatiems 5y ago
    If I understand the parent's argument, it's not that there are alternatives - it's that the actual goal of sanctions is to "rachet up" to more aggressive responses, possibly including military responses. I don't disagree that they can have this effect, but I really don't think that's the direction the US wants to go right now.
- ivraatiems 5y ago
  There's evidence that economic sanctions destablizie the specific leaders of countries they target, even if they do not affect direct regime change.[0] I don't think it's propaganda to say that's the goal of sanctions; I think the argument that the sanctions will definitely work is propaganda/tough talk on the part of the US. Candidly, I think much more severe consequences than unilateral sanctions would be necessary to actually stop this invasion at this point. However, given that Putin is the driving force behind this invasion, it makes sense to take measures that are designed to get rid of him. [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3647732 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3647732

Aunche 5y ago

That's the propaganda used to justify sanctions, but historically, no government has been overthrown due to sanctions. The sanctioned country can just use the sanction as an example of hegemony, which isn't exactly inaccurate. What sanctions do accomplish is that they give you an avenue for more aggressive intervention. An example of this is America's sanctions against Imperial Japan before WWII.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> That's the propaganda used to justify sanctions, but historically, no government has been overthrown due to sanctions. Since the idea is to get governments to change their behavior and being overthrown is just one of the extreme tail risks that play in to motivating that behavioral change, that's neither surprising nor inconsistent with sanctions working.
mcguire 5y ago
And the alternatives to sanctions are?
- ivraatiems 5y ago
  If I understand the parent's argument, it's not that there are alternatives - it's that the actual goal of sanctions is to "rachet up" to more aggressive responses, possibly including military responses. I don't disagree that they can have this effect, but I really don't think that's the direction the US wants to go right now.
ivraatiems 5y ago
There's evidence that economic sanctions destablizie the specific leaders of countries they target, even if they do not affect direct regime change.[0] I don't think it's propaganda to say that's the goal of sanctions; I think the argument that the sanctions will definitely work is propaganda/tough talk on the part of the US. Candidly, I think much more severe consequences than unilateral sanctions would be necessary to actually stop this invasion at this point. However, given that Putin is the driving force behind this invasion, it makes sense to take measures that are designed to get rid of him. [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3647732 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3647732