5 ms·

I'm still trying to historically find one country where regime change was achieved by applying economic sanctions.

mjburgess 5y ago
Putin sees NATO as an existential threat, vastly more significant than any economic threat. From this premise, he is operating ruthelessly rationally, not "crazy". The western narrative of "crazy putin" is in part just a delusional misunderstanding (Germany), an in part a strategy of getting western domestic buy in for beating up Russia (UK/USA). The West (USA & UK primarily) want russia bogged down in Ukraine as much as possible, and are using this opportunity to goad russia into a regieme-destabalisng move -- i suspect it's hoped that when putin levels Kyiv, they'll be a coup. This delusional domestic propaganda about ukrainian resistance is playing right into the strategic hands of, largely, the UK. It's a dangerous game for Europe to play, and it's a luxury the USA can't afford -- which needs russia to contain china. The UK here is hoping europeans will come to depend on it more explicitly for security, germany arming itself here is an unexpected turn of events. The USA is still not focused on china enough to see what a silly nightmare this is going to be.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  This really is getting old and has been debunked over and over again.
- smcl 5y ago
  > Putin sees NATO as an existential threat That would make him crazy though, or at least extremely deluded. I don't think any NATO member had (or has!) any intention of entering into conflict with Russia - otherwise we would've seen an escalation back in 2014. I think you are giving him too much credit and are taking his words at face value. I think he probably sees NATO or the EU as contributing to the shrinking Russian of influence. This is definitely true, but it doesn't in any rational world justify military action and certainly isn't an existential threat to either Russia or Putin. Hence the popular "crazy Putin" narrative ... because it really kind of is.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Ukraine isn't in NATO and has no claim to NATO support. And yet, NATO is basically using the country to conduct a proxy war. From the Russian POV, everything here has been confirmed. NATO is an existential threat to russia. Imagine if the USA invaded cuba and russia sent massive arms/etc. to cuba, and destabalized the US economy. What would the USA think about Russia? That, exactly, it is very much the threat "it was always believed to be".
    - fabian2k 5y ago
      That's just plain ridiculous. The economic sanctions are in direct response to the invasion of a sovereign country. You can't use them as justification for this very same invasion. And the arms shipments are not by NATO directly, though of course many countries here are also members of NATO. And those shipment only started when Russia started to threaten Ukraine, invaded the Krim and finally invaded the whole country.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Why did they decide to do all that?
      - romwell 5y ago
        Sadly, the person you're asking the question to seems to be either arguing in bad faith, or has internalized circular logic, and won't be able to see the point you're making Thank you for highlighting it for everyone else reading the thread!
    - smcl 5y ago
      So you're telling me that Putin ordered the invasion of Russia because NATO represented an existential threat to Russia. And this existential threat to Russia is demonstrated by an inflow of arms to Ukraine as a direct result of the invasion? Meaning that he could accurately predict the future reaction to his invasion, and used it as a justification for the invasion? We don't have to cheerlead a NATO or EU military response (and I'm certainly not for that), make stupid "Ghost of Kyiv" memes or display the sort of bloodlust that some in the media have ... but this is a really weird position you're taking. One mistake I think many are making is mapping this to different invasions/wars in the past - Germany/Poland, USSR/Agfhanistan, USA/Afghanistan etc - and assigning roles then picking sides accordingly. I do not think it is that simple and by the same token I do not know what the right course of action should be. But I know that "Putin is justified and acting rationally" is one of the wrongest takes of this war.
smcl 5y ago
But it's not just economic sanctions out of the blue in and of themselves. It's a sudden and near-total exclusion from the global financial system as a response to a war which is proving to be quite unpopular and tremendously costly ... and it's not exactly going to plan. I'm not making any predictions, it could very well be that Putin hangs onto power no matter what the outcome. But this is not at all like the USA slapping sanctions on Venezuela, DPRK or Cuba.
romwell 5y ago
Look at Russia in 1917, and what caused the Tsar to abdicate. Sanctions on Russia can recreate these conditions.
- watwut 5y ago
  Russia now does not really resemble the monarchy back them. Russia 1917 was Russia after years of internal instability and violence. It had established revolutionary movements. And it ended with civil war that ended up being won by the worst fraction of those available.
  - romwell 5y ago
    I beg to disagree. * An out-of-touch autocrat? Check! * Established revolutionary movement? Navalny. Check! * Instability? Did you miss the protests and martial law starting tomorrow (in spite of no fighting going on on Russian land)? Check! * Global flu pandemic? Check! * Food shortages? Give 'em a week. And the civil war was the outcome of the second "revolution", which was, in reality, a coup. The real revolution started with a Women's March on March 8th (yes, the same thing that's still happening every year), and ended with the establishment of the Provisional Government [1]. Which, admittedly, wasn't the best and fell to the Bolshevik coup. But it did end autocracy in Russia for a while. And USSR, before Stalin took over, introduced: * universal suffrage * no-fault divorces * ban on ethnic discrimination * all higher education available to women * all jobs open to women That's not justifying the red terror in any way, just that they were hardly "the worst". And they did pull out of WW1 (unlike the Provisional gov't). Which brings me back to the original point: ongoing unpopular war + hunger = end of regime. Worked twice in Russia: with Tsar Nicholas II, and with Kerensky. Oh, make it thrice: Afghan war + empty shelves in grocery stores gave us Gorbachev's Perestroika. Putin's turn now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution
    - watwut 5y ago
      > Established revolutionary movement? Navalny. Check! No it does not. Russia back then had multiple active revolutionary groups. Some of them active and violent too - effectively terrorist groups. The serious attempts to reform Russia were going on for years at that point too. > Food shortages? Give 'em a week. Russia back then had food shortages for years. Not for, like a week or so. > Global flu pandemic? Check! I dont think that was much factor back then, but would not be now either? > * universal suffrage * no-fault divorces * ban on ethnic discrimination * all higher education available to women * all jobs open to women Yeah, women movement in Russia had advantage of pushing for women voting rights around the time when male voting rights were question too. But, that has zero to do with uprising. > Which brings me back to the original point: ongoing unpopular war + hunger = end of regime. It primary takes weak regime. Otherwise no, as pretty much any dictator hanging on power in war torn country shows. Plus, this war is nowhere near the destruction WWI caused - unless you live in Ukraine.
tpush 5y ago
The immediate goal of the sanctions right now is to make Putin stop the invasion, nothing more. We don't know if that will work, but we are obligated to try.
dotancohen 5y ago
Not by sanctions, but the USSR famously drained its finances in the arms- and space- races with the West, and that is considered a significant factor in its demise. It has often been said that the Buran program specifically was the last straw.
rsynnott 5y ago
South Africa, arguably.

Putin sees NATO as an existential threat, vastly more significant than any economic threat. From this premise, he is operating ruthelessly rationally, not "crazy". The western narrative of "crazy putin" is in part just a delusional misunderstanding (Germany), an in part a strategy of getting western domestic buy in for beating up Russia (UK/USA). The West (USA & UK primarily) want russia bogged down in Ukraine as much as possible, and are using this opportunity to goad russia into a regieme-destabalisng move -- i suspect it's hoped that when putin levels Kyiv, they'll be a coup. This delusional domestic propaganda about ukrainian resistance is playing right into the strategic hands of, largely, the UK. It's a dangerous game for Europe to play, and it's a luxury the USA can't afford -- which needs russia to contain china. The UK here is hoping europeans will come to depend on it more explicitly for security, germany arming itself here is an unexpected turn of events. The USA is still not focused on china enough to see what a silly nightmare this is going to be.

jacquesm 5y ago
This really is getting old and has been debunked over and over again.
smcl 5y ago
> Putin sees NATO as an existential threat That would make him crazy though, or at least extremely deluded. I don't think any NATO member had (or has!) any intention of entering into conflict with Russia - otherwise we would've seen an escalation back in 2014. I think you are giving him too much credit and are taking his words at face value. I think he probably sees NATO or the EU as contributing to the shrinking Russian of influence. This is definitely true, but it doesn't in any rational world justify military action and certainly isn't an existential threat to either Russia or Putin. Hence the popular "crazy Putin" narrative ... because it really kind of is.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Ukraine isn't in NATO and has no claim to NATO support. And yet, NATO is basically using the country to conduct a proxy war. From the Russian POV, everything here has been confirmed. NATO is an existential threat to russia. Imagine if the USA invaded cuba and russia sent massive arms/etc. to cuba, and destabalized the US economy. What would the USA think about Russia? That, exactly, it is very much the threat "it was always believed to be".
  - fabian2k 5y ago
    That's just plain ridiculous. The economic sanctions are in direct response to the invasion of a sovereign country. You can't use them as justification for this very same invasion. And the arms shipments are not by NATO directly, though of course many countries here are also members of NATO. And those shipment only started when Russia started to threaten Ukraine, invaded the Krim and finally invaded the whole country.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Why did they decide to do all that?
    - romwell 5y ago
      Sadly, the person you're asking the question to seems to be either arguing in bad faith, or has internalized circular logic, and won't be able to see the point you're making Thank you for highlighting it for everyone else reading the thread!
  - smcl 5y ago
    So you're telling me that Putin ordered the invasion of Russia because NATO represented an existential threat to Russia. And this existential threat to Russia is demonstrated by an inflow of arms to Ukraine as a direct result of the invasion? Meaning that he could accurately predict the future reaction to his invasion, and used it as a justification for the invasion? We don't have to cheerlead a NATO or EU military response (and I'm certainly not for that), make stupid "Ghost of Kyiv" memes or display the sort of bloodlust that some in the media have ... but this is a really weird position you're taking. One mistake I think many are making is mapping this to different invasions/wars in the past - Germany/Poland, USSR/Agfhanistan, USA/Afghanistan etc - and assigning roles then picking sides accordingly. I do not think it is that simple and by the same token I do not know what the right course of action should be. But I know that "Putin is justified and acting rationally" is one of the wrongest takes of this war.

smcl 5y ago

But it's not just economic sanctions out of the blue in and of themselves. It's a sudden and near-total exclusion from the global financial system as a response to a war which is proving to be quite unpopular and tremendously costly ... and it's not exactly going to plan. I'm not making any predictions, it could very well be that Putin hangs onto power no matter what the outcome. But this is not at all like the USA slapping sanctions on Venezuela, DPRK or Cuba.

romwell 5y ago

Look at Russia in 1917, and what caused the Tsar to abdicate. Sanctions on Russia can recreate these conditions.

watwut 5y ago
Russia now does not really resemble the monarchy back them. Russia 1917 was Russia after years of internal instability and violence. It had established revolutionary movements. And it ended with civil war that ended up being won by the worst fraction of those available.
- romwell 5y ago
  I beg to disagree. * An out-of-touch autocrat? Check! * Established revolutionary movement? Navalny. Check! * Instability? Did you miss the protests and martial law starting tomorrow (in spite of no fighting going on on Russian land)? Check! * Global flu pandemic? Check! * Food shortages? Give 'em a week. And the civil war was the outcome of the second "revolution", which was, in reality, a coup. The real revolution started with a Women's March on March 8th (yes, the same thing that's still happening every year), and ended with the establishment of the Provisional Government [1]. Which, admittedly, wasn't the best and fell to the Bolshevik coup. But it did end autocracy in Russia for a while. And USSR, before Stalin took over, introduced: * universal suffrage * no-fault divorces * ban on ethnic discrimination * all higher education available to women * all jobs open to women That's not justifying the red terror in any way, just that they were hardly "the worst". And they did pull out of WW1 (unlike the Provisional gov't). Which brings me back to the original point: ongoing unpopular war + hunger = end of regime. Worked twice in Russia: with Tsar Nicholas II, and with Kerensky. Oh, make it thrice: Afghan war + empty shelves in grocery stores gave us Gorbachev's Perestroika. Putin's turn now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution
  - watwut 5y ago
    > Established revolutionary movement? Navalny. Check! No it does not. Russia back then had multiple active revolutionary groups. Some of them active and violent too - effectively terrorist groups. The serious attempts to reform Russia were going on for years at that point too. > Food shortages? Give 'em a week. Russia back then had food shortages for years. Not for, like a week or so. > Global flu pandemic? Check! I dont think that was much factor back then, but would not be now either? > * universal suffrage * no-fault divorces * ban on ethnic discrimination * all higher education available to women * all jobs open to women Yeah, women movement in Russia had advantage of pushing for women voting rights around the time when male voting rights were question too. But, that has zero to do with uprising. > Which brings me back to the original point: ongoing unpopular war + hunger = end of regime. It primary takes weak regime. Otherwise no, as pretty much any dictator hanging on power in war torn country shows. Plus, this war is nowhere near the destruction WWI caused - unless you live in Ukraine.

tpush 5y ago

The immediate goal of the sanctions right now is to make Putin stop the invasion, nothing more. We don't know if that will work, but we are obligated to try.

dotancohen 5y ago

Not by sanctions, but the USSR famously drained its finances in the arms- and space- races with the West, and that is considered a significant factor in its demise. It has often been said that the Buran program specifically was the last straw.

rsynnott 5y ago

South Africa, arguably.