This article seems... confused at best. It makes a kind of half-hearted claim that sanctions in general don't work, but provides no real suggestion for what to

This article seems... confused at best. It makes a kind of half-hearted claim that sanctions in general don't work, but provides no real suggestion for what to do instead (nothing? Invasion?). It also doesn't seem to make any real distinction between government sanctions - which will cause a lot of hurt to average Russians, and the criticism that a private boycott of Russia will do the same. Just in general the argument that "Sanctions aren't going to save Ukraine" is a kind of facile view of what sanctions are and how they work. For example >Again, the link between the two goes woefully unexplained. Russian tanks have entered Ukraine, so Disney's films can't enter Moscow's cinemas? Russia is breaking international law and killing people, so companies don't want to do business in Russia. It's not some incredible leap. >That strategy is ethically problematic given that it requires harming millions of ordinary Russians in order to induce a policy change in a government they have no say over. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the logic behind sanctions. The sanctions are in place because Western nations have no choice but to find ways to harm Russia in response to the illegal invasion. The suffering of ordinary Russians is the direct result of Putin's actions, he's the one causing this to happen. In fact for months leading up to this the West made it perfectly clear this is what they'd be forced to. With no sanctions, the cost of Putin breaking international law would be basically 0 and therefore likely to precipitate much further suffering. Frankly, I'm really tired of these incredibly self-satisfied sites like "reason.com" pumping out some rubbish. It's just such a staggering self-awareness that I would have thought most people grew out of in their early teens.