4 ms·

For my personal perspective, I do have empathy for you (genuinely), but I still wholeheartedly support the forced deterioration of your economy if it either con

For my personal perspective, I do have empathy for you (genuinely), but I still wholeheartedly support the forced deterioration of your economy if it either contributes to regime change or reduces your country's ability to wage conventional war (and I believe at least one of those outcomes is a plausible consequence).

achikin 5y ago
Deterioration of the economy usually leads to more war even more quickly. You can take Germany after the WWI as an example. Positive regime changes are only possible in the stable economical situation. Take me as an example - at the moment I do programming for a living. Let’s imagine I’m cut off of all the tools, customers and equipment. What would I do? I’ll probably have to work for the regime which will become the only source of the income, will get much smaller wage, work longer hours and have much less resources and influence to change the situation. We went through all this during the Soviet Union times. Such regimes benefit a lot from the isolation which allows them to turn people into slaves essentially. The idea that you can improve anything by harming people never works. Putin’s propaganda is using the same argument- they claim that they fight in the Ukraine to improve the situation in the region. I doubt you believe that.
- shock-value 5y ago
  If Russia were to be forced into an isolationist command economy as you describe I would surmise that, much like the Soviet Union, its influence and relative threat to the rest of the world would deteriorate over time, maybe leading to a similar internal collapse. For your and the world's sake I don't want that outcome, but I'd nonetheless take it over its current status as a relatively more robust economy helmed by an aggressive and violent expansionist.
  - achikin 5y ago
    Well if you want to get rid of the robust violent regimes that engage in war outside of their borders than you should start with the US. They have been involved in much more conflicts and killed much more civilian people all over the world than Russia.
- zuminator 5y ago
  So how do you recommend that the rest of the world support Ukraine's effort to not be swallowed up and pillaged by a neighboring country?
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    Direct military intervention is the only way to save Ukraine at this moment. Massive deployment of NATO troops near Lviv, no-fly zone etc. Given the inflow of refugees, EU can rightfully claim that the war is causing economic damage to it and intervene on humanitarian grounds. We are looking into Syrian scenario unfortunately.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  Deterioration of the economy in times of peace favors war, but deterioration when war is already committed to is a valid tool to the aim of ending the war by destroying the ability to project force. This is not the same aim as sanctions in peacetime.

achikin 5y ago

Deterioration of the economy usually leads to more war even more quickly. You can take Germany after the WWI as an example. Positive regime changes are only possible in the stable economical situation. Take me as an example - at the moment I do programming for a living. Let’s imagine I’m cut off of all the tools, customers and equipment. What would I do? I’ll probably have to work for the regime which will become the only source of the income, will get much smaller wage, work longer hours and have much less resources and influence to change the situation. We went through all this during the Soviet Union times. Such regimes benefit a lot from the isolation which allows them to turn people into slaves essentially. The idea that you can improve anything by harming people never works. Putin’s propaganda is using the same argument- they claim that they fight in the Ukraine to improve the situation in the region. I doubt you believe that.

shock-value 5y ago
If Russia were to be forced into an isolationist command economy as you describe I would surmise that, much like the Soviet Union, its influence and relative threat to the rest of the world would deteriorate over time, maybe leading to a similar internal collapse. For your and the world's sake I don't want that outcome, but I'd nonetheless take it over its current status as a relatively more robust economy helmed by an aggressive and violent expansionist.
- achikin 5y ago
  Well if you want to get rid of the robust violent regimes that engage in war outside of their borders than you should start with the US. They have been involved in much more conflicts and killed much more civilian people all over the world than Russia.
zuminator 5y ago
So how do you recommend that the rest of the world support Ukraine's effort to not be swallowed up and pillaged by a neighboring country?
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  Direct military intervention is the only way to save Ukraine at this moment. Massive deployment of NATO troops near Lviv, no-fly zone etc. Given the inflow of refugees, EU can rightfully claim that the war is causing economic damage to it and intervene on humanitarian grounds. We are looking into Syrian scenario unfortunately.
FeepingCreature 5y ago
Deterioration of the economy in times of peace favors war, but deterioration when war is already committed to is a valid tool to the aim of ending the war by destroying the ability to project force. This is not the same aim as sanctions in peacetime.