3 ms·

My statement (about sanctions being a message or behaviour modifier) is no more of an oversimplification than yours (about populace not being in charge / not be

My statement (about sanctions being a message or behaviour modifier) is no more of an oversimplification than yours (about populace not being in charge / not being able to modify their country's behaviour) At any rate, if we want to engage in a productive discussion, let us enumerate alternatives and rank them. I'll start * Sanctions * Military Engagement * Assassination * Covert policy, government, elections influence What other means does the world have to say "please don't do that"? Which are preferred over / should come before sanctions, and why? I don't mean this to sound antagonistic. I'm tremendously frustrated because I agree sanctions are weak, mis-targeted and won't drive sufficient change fast enough. But while I can rail against them, I don't genuinely know what else is left on the plate. One participant is acting like a violent bully. At that point, once discussion/education/negotiation has failed, there's really no good options for anybody left.

int_19h 5y ago
It's not that the sanctions don't drive change fast enough - it's that they don't drive them, period. The only effective counter to Russia right now is direct military aid to Ukraine. But the rest of the world has chosen to re-enact 1938 all over again.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The only effective counter to Russia right now is direct military aid to Ukraine. But the rest of the world has chosen to re-enact 1938 all over again. The US aid package just announced includes security aid that is a sizable fraction of Ukraine's annual defense spending, on top of preexisting direct security aid. And the US isn't alone. Sanctions aren't the only response.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  Many countries, including Canada, are sending military equipment or financial support to Ukraine. Its not an either / or proposition. If however by direct military aid you mean soldiers on the ground fighting Russians, then a) I agree that would be more effective and b) I think it's unlikely to happen because c) if we engage in second order thinking, I don't see how it ends well for anyone in the short term. That's the problem with a Bully, they don't care about their own pain as much as other guys care about theirs. Once they start hitting, there are no great options. All options from here on suck.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Once the bully starts hitting, the only option that actually solves the problem long term is everybody hitting back. Because you'll end up fighting the bully anyway sooner or later. But if it's later, there will be fewer left standing by your side.
    - NikolaNovak 5y ago
      I don't disagree. The problem is 1. This Bully has nuclear weapons 2. This Bully has historically shown they are willing and able to take more pain for their cause.
      - int_19h 5y ago
        Indeed. But the bully also knows that using nukes would be the end of him, even if he gets to take everybody else along. Russia would absolutely use nukes if it's actually invaded, but a conventional military confrontation on foreign territory is a very different matter. As for being willing to take more pain - you're right, that's a big part of the problem for the West. But it needs to understand that, just like in 1938, avoiding the bully only delays the inevitable, and the pain will still come eventually.
        NikolaNovak 5y ago
        I worry that it's not about one big red button but gradual escalation. Somebody decides that using tactical kiloton Nukes is the way to go and other side would not dare escalate further. A lot of people think if they do the big fearsome escalation, then the other side will back off. Everything up to this point indicates this is Putin's logic. He may be over committed now - what option other than finishing invasion does he realistically have that preserves any goals or prerogatives? In some ways the rational thing, from his perspective, is to keep escalating until other side acts "rationally" and backs off. It's all a giant game of chicken, and I am not convinced that all state leaders anywhere let alone everywhere are rational and fearful enough.
  - reitanqild 5y ago

int_19h 5y ago

It's not that the sanctions don't drive change fast enough - it's that they don't drive them, period. The only effective counter to Russia right now is direct military aid to Ukraine. But the rest of the world has chosen to re-enact 1938 all over again.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The only effective counter to Russia right now is direct military aid to Ukraine. But the rest of the world has chosen to re-enact 1938 all over again. The US aid package just announced includes security aid that is a sizable fraction of Ukraine's annual defense spending, on top of preexisting direct security aid. And the US isn't alone. Sanctions aren't the only response.
NikolaNovak 5y ago
Many countries, including Canada, are sending military equipment or financial support to Ukraine. Its not an either / or proposition. If however by direct military aid you mean soldiers on the ground fighting Russians, then a) I agree that would be more effective and b) I think it's unlikely to happen because c) if we engage in second order thinking, I don't see how it ends well for anyone in the short term. That's the problem with a Bully, they don't care about their own pain as much as other guys care about theirs. Once they start hitting, there are no great options. All options from here on suck.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Once the bully starts hitting, the only option that actually solves the problem long term is everybody hitting back. Because you'll end up fighting the bully anyway sooner or later. But if it's later, there will be fewer left standing by your side.
  - NikolaNovak 5y ago
    I don't disagree. The problem is 1. This Bully has nuclear weapons 2. This Bully has historically shown they are willing and able to take more pain for their cause.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Indeed. But the bully also knows that using nukes would be the end of him, even if he gets to take everybody else along. Russia would absolutely use nukes if it's actually invaded, but a conventional military confrontation on foreign territory is a very different matter. As for being willing to take more pain - you're right, that's a big part of the problem for the West. But it needs to understand that, just like in 1938, avoiding the bully only delays the inevitable, and the pain will still come eventually.
      - NikolaNovak 5y ago
        I worry that it's not about one big red button but gradual escalation. Somebody decides that using tactical kiloton Nukes is the way to go and other side would not dare escalate further. A lot of people think if they do the big fearsome escalation, then the other side will back off. Everything up to this point indicates this is Putin's logic. He may be over committed now - what option other than finishing invasion does he realistically have that preserves any goals or prerogatives? In some ways the rational thing, from his perspective, is to keep escalating until other side acts "rationally" and backs off. It's all a giant game of chicken, and I am not convinced that all state leaders anywhere let alone everywhere are rational and fearful enough.
- reitanqild 5y ago