9 ms·

Everywhere I've seen anyone motivate restrictions on Russian citizens it's been about pushing them to revolt against their government, not about punishing. I d

• Yajirobe 5y ago
  Americans about US wars: 'we cannot do anything about our government - they engage in wars and we couldn't stop them if we tried' Americans about Russian wars: 'the average Joes need to go out to the streets and bring Putin down'
  • nerkicacy 5y ago
    Americans can change government during election every few years if they don't like it. Russians can't. That's why the only way is 'the average Joes need to go out to the streets and bring Putin down'.
    • akrymski 5y ago
      Except you get 3-15 years in jail for protesting in Russia.
      • lostmsu 5y ago
        There are only so many jails, temporary detention facilities, and judges to give the verdicts.
        • akrymski 5y ago
          Tell that to Stalin
          • lostmsu 5y ago
            In his times there were no easy ways to organize masses of people due to lack of efficient decentralized means of communication.
            • akrymski 5y ago
              Social media is mostly banned. Posting anything online against the war is a 15 year jail sentence.
              • lostmsu 5y ago
                You have a solution to this problem 2 posts up in the chain.
      • nerkicacy 5y ago
        You could get shot in the head during Euromaidan[1] demonstrations in Ukraine (2013-2014). And they were able to remove Viktor Yanukovych from office. Many other countries escaped from Russian influance thanks to mass demonstration (Poland, East Germany, ex USSR nations). It is not easy, but there is not other way. Only Russian can dethrone Putin, no one else. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
        • akrymski 5y ago
          Yanukovich had far less support and had opposition. Ukraine's military presence was a fraction of Russia's. Already more Russians have been arrested in protests so far this week than in Maidan, but unless millions rise up it's impossible to remove Putin. When you shoot at a king and you miss you only solidify his position. Furthermore Maidan had assistance from the US. No such thing exists in Russia.
      • risyachka 5y ago
        Go watch how people go with bare hands to protest russian forces literally this minute. And yes, they don't risk 3-15 years of jail. They have hundreds of times higher chance to die. But they don't use it as an excuse.
        • akrymski 5y ago
          There is a very small number of protesters. We'd need a million people to rise up in Moscow alone to make a difference. Putin has too much support among his voters atm. And the iron curtain only solidifies his propaganda machine.
          • risyachka 5y ago
            >> There is a very small number of protesters. You sure? Or just speculate to support your point?
            • akrymski 5y ago
              I follow russian anti-war channels where people share videos of protestors. Numbers are very small I'm afraid (more cops than protestors).
              • risyachka 5y ago
                You should join some groups in viber/telegram of people that actually live there, and see for yourself. The only small numbers are russian army that wants to take a 44 mil country with weapons, cities, etc by their demotivated 150k troops that don't have the slightest clue how to fight.
                • akrymski 5y ago
                  I'm Russian and yes I am a member of the telegram groups you mention.
  • b112 5y ago
    When was the last time the US invaded, with an intent to never, ever leave? When was the last time the US invaded, and slaughtered civilians, on purpose, just to spread terror. Not by accident, or a rogue element, but purposefully. When was the last time the US jailed, not by a mistake in justice but on purpose, all who dared speak out about her actions? And killed them when possible? Many reading the above will say "But this one time...", yet that is the point. It is an aberration for such things in the US, not the norm. Not the standard. Russia is not even remotely the same. It is a dictatorship, lead by a single, non-elected, blood thirsty, malicious murderer. The whataboutisms are so weak, and paper thin here, it is absurd.
    • samstave 5y ago
    • yetihehe 5y ago
      > When was the last time the US invaded, with an intent to never, ever leave? When was the last time the US invaded, and slaughtered civilians, on purpose, just to spread terror. I'm against war in Ukraine and against Russian dictators, but Putin doesn't want to never leave, he wants to install pro-russian government, like USA does in attacked countries. But yes, we didn't hear about slaughtering civilians in our west-centric media, only from those russian propagandists like Assange and Snowden. > When was the last time the US jailed, not by a mistake in justice but on purpose, all who dared speak out about her actions? And killed them when possible? Like with Snowden, Assange and journalists involved in panama papers or Epstein case (who hanged himself in constantly observed cell)? What is different from my perspective about Russia: USA is still one of the best economies in the world, still have democratic rulers where you can change them and wants other countries to become like it (which means better than their current state). Russia just wants other countries to work for Russian might. We had anecdote in Poland, that USSR is not that bad, because it takes coal from us for free, but in exchange we build ships for them for free. So, while many Poles would not really fight that much if USA wanted to take over the country, we would (and do alredy in Ukraine) oppose Russia with all we have.
    • s1artibartfast 5y ago
  • torbTurret 5y ago
    Americans weren’t the first to do sanctions though? Not even close. In fact, EU countries were asking America to, and are still asking for more.
  • ledauphin 5y ago
    this is a silly caricature. historically, a majority of Americans supported both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq when they started, and public opinion did not turn against them for several years, and even then it was not an overwhelming majority. Obama campaigned on the folly of those wars but chose to stay involved because it was believed by many that some level of success could yet be achieved for the people in those countries, who were in many cases partnering with the US. Nevertheless, the eventual unpopularity of those wars did in fact lead to "regime change" in the US, because the US is a (somewhat) functioning democracy. Americans are in fact at this very moment preventing the US from engaging in this war in Ukraine.
    • s1artibartfast 5y ago
      While Obama was talking out of one side of his mouth regarding tire Iraq, he was starting a bombing campaign in Syria and Libya with the other
    • mumblemumble 5y ago
      > Americans are in fact at this very moment preventing the US from engaging in this war in Ukraine. The US getting more directly involved in Ukraine was never a likely outcome, for reasons that have nothing to do with American public opinion. Throughout the Cold War, both the USA and the USSR made a policy of never directly engaging in conflict on the same soil, because the risk of it escalating into a nuclear war was just too great. Instead, they would fight proxy wars where at most one country was a direct combatant, and the other country merely provided material support to an ally. We can expect the war in Ukraine to continue following the same playbook, and for the same reason. And other NATO countries will also avoid sending their own troops into Ukraine for fear of creating a slippery slope that pulls NATO's nuclear powers into the war.
      • ledauphin 5y ago
        this is all very true, but does not negate what i said. the American public does not want to risk nuclear war.
• lolinder 5y ago
  At this point, it doesn't look at all like we can practically expect a popular revolt. For me there are two outcomes to target with the sanctions: * Make life unpleasant enough for the oligarchs that they replace Putin with someone less intent on ruining the nice thing they had going. * Handicap Russia's ability to wage war. This includes eliminating their ability to buy supplies and destroying their morale. It's the second goal that is, in my mind, the motivation for the economy-destroying sanctions.
  • samstave 5y ago
    It would be great if Oligarchs around the world were uncomfortable. This should be and opportunity to catalogue just exactly who the oligarchs are and what are their assets and how are they affected.
    • rjsw 5y ago
      Might also be helpful to declare that anything confiscated from an oligarch will be given back to the Russian people/state after everything has calmed down.
      • scoot 5y ago
        That's what's happening in part to frozen assets of the Afghan Central Bank [1], so it's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility – but how that would work in practice in Putin controlled Russia I have no idea. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/11/politics/executive-order-afghanistan-9-11-humanitarian-aid/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/11/politics/executive-order-...
    • akrymski 5y ago
      Oligarchs don't run the country. They have zero control. It's like saying let's sanction Elon Musk for Iraq. The country is run by the military. Protesters are jailed for 3-5 years.
      • samstave 5y ago
• lenkite 5y ago
  Didn't see any revolting Americans when the Iraq War was initiated.
  • formvoltron 5y ago
    We had big protests. They were not big enough unfortunately.
  • forty 5y ago
    What sanctions against the American economy following Iraq war, would have pushed Americans to revolt?
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • School-Cotton 5y ago
    Sanctions against the US for the Iraq war would have been totally legitimate. What exactly is your point?
    • lowkey 5y ago
      That the US is arguably the most powerful nation in the world and that sanctions by smaller economies vs empires like the US are like Palistinian children throwing rocks at Israeli tanks. It is easy to claim that sanctions against the US would have been legitimate when it is clear to most that they would have had little to no meaningful impact.
      • ajsnigrutin 5y ago
        This was true during the first iraq war... and even then barely. Now, just china imposing sanctions, would seriously fuck with US economy. Add on EU to that, and the situation would be pretty bad for americans.
    • filomeno 5y ago
      The point is that there were no sanctions, and there won't be the next time the US decides to invade another country. So punishing Russia this time gives the US an unfair advantage, and that's not good for anyone outside the US.
• mbreese 5y ago
  It’s not only about revolting, but without a free press, economic sanctions are one way to get people to know that something is going on. Russian citizens may not even know what is happening, but when they suddenly can’t buy thing, when Apple Pay stops working, when costs skyrocket… that gets people to pay attention.
  • th-2022-03 5y ago
    I'm being totally serious about this: as a first generation American, 9/11 caused me to rethink what this country was doing abroad. Obviously the loss of life was terrible. People in my town died in the Twin Towers. But I grew up mostly with American propoganda. I didn't know that the US had a long history of overthrowing governments in the Middle East and South America, and generally meddling in their affairs. Not to mention trading Oil with corrupt Arab leaders who hold their countries hostage. There is not an equivalence between the bad behvaior of the American and Russian state. I'd say Russians are worse in some ways, and Americans are worse in other ways -- largely because Americans are more powerful and influential. So I'm basically agreeing with your argument, although I don't think it's "fair" for the people to suffer (e.g. all the people who died in 9/11). However Americans also have to realize that we largely haven't faced any consequences as people, except a few outliers of terrorist attacks. (throwaway since I usually don't comment about politics)
    • SeanLuke 5y ago
      > But I grew up mostly with American propoganda. I didn't know that the US had a long history of overthrowing governments in the Middle East and South America, and generally meddling in their affairs. I'm sorry, but this is whataboutism in its full glory. The US has a free press, and its unfortunate history of overthrowing or supporting governments was and is well documented by the press and by historians in the United States. This documentation and publication resulted in many public scandals, lawsuits, and public intrigue, particularly through the 1960s to 1980s when the US's activities in this regard were perhaps that their peak. The resulting history is taught in universities and in elementary schools across the USA. Now, there are well-known political parties or other people with a vested interest in spinning things in their own way, as is the case in any country, but if you think the United States press is anything like the press in Russia, or that its public is anywhere as ignorant of the facts as the public in Russia and similar countries, or if you felt you were unaware of the US history in this regard while it was going on, then you perhaps led a sheltered life. But it wasn't for lack of trying on part of the US press.
• akomtu 5y ago
  It didn't work with North Korea, it won't work with Russia. Populace there is unarmed, disorganised and divided, while the Putin's gang is very organised and not shy of using violence against dissenters. When NATO says "we're trying to push russian joes to fix their government", they really mean "we're afraid to confront your bully, he's just too strong and cruel for us."
  • lolinder 5y ago
    In case you haven't noticed, North Korea hasn't exactly invaded South Korea recently. The sanctions haven't created a revolt, but they've almost certainly eliminated the North's ability to wage an offensive war. Doing the same to Russia should be our target. If we cannot end the totalitarian regime without starting World War III, we can still neutralize it as a threat to the rest of the world.
  • yetihehe 5y ago
    > Populace there is unarmed So, we should give them weapons? > disorganised and divided You think that overthrowing their government would work? Maybe with some "special military operation" perhaps? > "we're afraid to confront your bully, he's just too strong and cruel for us." Or maybe - we have a rule where we don't try to assasinate leaders unless strictly necessary. And before you say about Iraq and nin Laden - that was USA operation, not NATO. But I still think that would be best solution which minimises losses in people. But try to do this, even bin Laden was not found in one week, it would be much harder to find Putin in some vault. Plus, after he is killed, there will be some other former KGB agent to replace him.
    • philovivero 5y ago
      > we have a rule where we don't try to assasinate leaders unless strictly necessary And yet, here we are. Maybe this is the rule that needs to change. How many of these wars will we see in the coming decades if we simply start assassinating the leaders of aggressive countries? I understand there are often power vacuums and things can be worse afterward, but maybe a good, 20-year run of assassinating aggressive world leaders would lead us to a better place. Why is it always the average Joe that has to pay his life for the leaders?
• rectang 5y ago
  The purpose of sanctions is to persuade Russia to stop the war, not to get rid of Putin. Even if some might want it to go further, it won't, because the coalition will not hold. If Putin stops the war and pulls back to pre-invasion boundaries, the group of countries imposing sanctions will not continue to hold out for Putin's ouster in addition. An outright revolution by the Russian people is not necessary, though we might hope for unrest which degrades Russia's ability to wage war. The suffering of Russia's common citizens isn't desirable. But it can be justified, since Ukrainian citizens have it far worse.
• veganhouseDJ 5y ago
  I just can't believe any thinking person believes that punishing the Russian people has any chance of getting rid of Putin. He has had all the time in the world to insulate himself and plan exactly for that situation. I bet he doesn't even come in contact in person with anyone he doesn't know from the Soviet days at this point and the people he does are probably guilty of all kinds of things themselves if Putin was done away with.
  • Etherlord87 5y ago
    If russians didn't support Putin, it wouldn't matter if he lives or not and if he's isolated (which is called an imprisonment btw) or not. Russians have to decide: do you want to continue living in peace with the rest of the world, or not. In the former case, retake control of your country and stop invading, raping and murdering Ukrainian civilians.