7 ms·

Surely this will be an interesting event, but the title alone seems to compare economic sanctions with war, unfairly in my opinion. From a schoolyard perspecti

Surely this will be an interesting event, but the title alone seems to compare economic sanctions with war, unfairly in my opinion. From a schoolyard perspective, economic sanctions are like giving a peer the silent treatment. It hurts you both, but it's your right not to interact with someone if you find them sufficiently unpleasant. War is like committing homicide against that peer during recess. In other words, it's really fucking bad.

thallium205 5y ago
No. Sanctions are weapons of mass destruction. They starve and kill the poorest in a nation. It's akin to carpet bombing a town without explosions. This is not hyperbole. Look to history at the destruction of sanctions.
- vaidhy 5y ago
  I have no idea why this is being down-voted. This is the truth. People in western europe have no idea what it means to live under scarcity. Take Sri Lanka for e.g. - not even under sanction, but lack foreign reserves. Long blackouts, disruption of normal life since petrol (gasoline) is not always available. Eventual food shortages because fertilizer needs to be imported. Now think of another country under sanctions - even hope of better future is being crushed.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    It's getting downvoted because westerners have been whipped up into a bloodlust frenzy towards Russia. Just like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, those who speak against the destruction will be derided as unpatriotic, freedom hating traitors.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  100%. Sanctions are a WMD that simply have a nice level of deniability. We don't have to see the mass destruction and pain they cause, because it's not a direct explosion like a bomb, but the ultimate effect is much the same like you say.
brandall10 5y ago
Silent treatment is cutting off diplomatic ties. Sanctions is starvation of resources, potentially impacting the war effort directly but indirectly by causing civil unrest. I agree it’s certainly not the same as direct warfare, but its definitely somewhere in the middle, and can particularly castostrophic when done in a concerted multilateral fashion (ie. North Korea).
- LanceH 5y ago
  Sanctions is not feeding them -- but doing nothing to stop them from feeding themselves. Certainly not stopping them from behaving nicely and getting to interact again. War is shooting people dead. There is a stark difference.
  - stormbrew 5y ago
    In the modern world, no country is self-sufficient. This isn't even an accident, it's an explicit goal of the modern liberal economic system, partly to try to dampen the conditions that lead to war. At any rate, sanctions create consequences for trade for third parties as well, so any country that doesn't come along on it will also face the possibility of being shut off from trade with the EU, the US, and the rest of their allied nations. No country in the world save China can endure that for long without completely destabilizing their economy and their legal order. And make no mistake, people will die due to these sanctions. Russia's medical system will not endure lack of trade for long, and it's likely there will be food shortages as well. This is entirely independent of whether or not it's the right thing to do. People need to understand that these actions have real human consequences, whether they agree with the cost or not. Sanctions as enacted here are not "I'm not talking to you", they're "I will punch anyone who keeps talking to you." Also, I guarantee you that if a country sanctioned the US in a way that actually impacted the american economy (again, probably only China could pull this off right now), the US would consider it an act of aggression. Just nationalizing American interests has been cause for American intervention before.
    - MattGaiser 5y ago
      > Sanctions as enacted here are not "I'm not talking to you", they're "I will punch anyone who keeps talking to you." Hardly. We are’t going to bomb a country that goes against the sanctions. They will just also be sanctioned. We are forcing people to pick a side to do business with, not punching them.
qiskit 5y ago
No. Economic sanctions are an act of war. Just like blockading a port is an act of war. War doesn't necessarily mean killing human beings. You could bomb an empty munitions factory and it would be an act of war. Economic sanctions is the rich nations' weapon. It's a weapon that only a wealthy nation can wield. It's why there is so much support for it amongst rich nations. Certainly if anyone destabilized the american or european economies with sanctions, we'd definitely call it an act of war. > From a schoolyard perspective, economic sanctions are like giving a peer the silent treatment. No. It would be like Bezos saying if anyone does business with you, they'll be cut off from amazon. It's saying anyone who does business with russia is going to get attacked. It's why china was attacked for trading with iran when china doesn't have any economic sanctions on iran. It's saying the whole world can't do business with russia. All wars are fundamentally economic wars. But we usually cloak it around noble virtues like 'freedom, god, democracy, 'kill nazis', etc' because it's so tacky and shameful to be attacking each other for money. Makes you no better than common criminal. A lousy thief at that. Surely, the leaders of Russia, US, NATO, etc are better than some lousy neighborhood thief. Right?
- erdos4d 5y ago
  > Economic sanctions are an act of war. This 100%. I'm seriously wondering how all these people supporting heavy sanctions will feel when Putin realizes he can't win via conventional means and his economy is destroyed, so he starts nuking things.
  - InsaneOstrich 5y ago
    What's the alternative? Doing nothing while Russia invades countries in Eastern Europe one after the other?
    - coldtea 5y ago
      Ensuring Ukraine's neutrality instead of sacrificing it as a pawn?
      - 5y ago
pmorici 5y ago
There is historical precedent for economic sanctions leading to war. Notability the US froze Japanese assets in the US and embargoed selling US oil to them in July 1941. Less than 5 months later the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. You aren’t wrong but you also have to consider that economic sanctions have historically been a precursor if not the friction point that caused a war.
- syntaxing 5y ago
  I’m not sure if that’s a fair cause and effect statement though. Most sanctions were placed to pressure the opposite side without going to war and arguably prevent physical conflict. Hard to say the hypothetical result, but the timeline would of been, no sanctions and go to war anyway or push for sanctions and hope it’s enough to scare the opposite party but if it fails, you go to war anyway
  - pmorici 5y ago
    The point is one shouldn’t be so naive that you fool yourself into thinking that the range of possible responses to sanctions doesn’t include war. Analogies of sanctions being like giving the school yard bully the cold shoulder seem like just such a naive interpretation given how they have played out historically. I’m not saying they can’t work or that they shouldn’t be used just to be aware of the full range of possible outcomes.
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      There is also the other side to consider. By not boycotting or sanctioning an aggressor you're supporting their efforts by supplying material or funds through trade. When a government has a proven record of bullying or annexing their neighbors I think boycotting is the least one can do. And collective sanctions among allies is a reasonable next step where diplomacy fails. In the case of Russia sanctions weren't even enough to stop them after they annexed Crimea. No one wants to continuously cave into a bully then pretend it's "peace in our time".
coldtea 5y ago
>Surely this will be an interesting event, but the title alone seems to compare economic sanctions with war, unfairly in my opinion. Well, some sanctions had more casualties than some wars.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  An important distinction is that a sanctioned country can change their own behavior to end the suffering. (I.e. retreat to the previous borders or stop the genocide.) And without having to deal with complications like foreign armies killing and capturing. War usually involves another country directly causing harm and suffering to an aggressor. To escape the aggressor often must capitulate completely.
jmbwell 5y ago
Except that the peer you’re giving the silent treatment provides oil, gas, and metals to every part of the world that isn’t North America. Your point is taken, it’s not physically blowing someone up. But from the global perspective, isolating Russia with sanctions removes them from the economy in the same way bombing Moscow would, while leaving alive people who might have a chance of changing the course of the conflict. You don’t have to kill an enemy to neutralize it. In fact it’s quicker, easier, cheaper, and more effective not to. But it is still every bit an act of war — wrecking the global economy is also “really fucking bad.” And besides all that, if people getting blown up is what you’re looking for, it’s still early days yet. This is all far from over. And even if it stopped tomorrow, we will be dealing with the ramifications of this for years.
simonh 5y ago
Sanctions of the kind now being imposed on Russia, and previous imposed on North Korea are the modern equivalent of a siege to starve your opponent out. It's not just a matter of abstaining from trading with them, the US and Europe are blockading trade by third parties as well. Even the bank of China has suspended dealings with some Russian banks because doing so would incur legal penalties on them from the US. Even parts manufactured in third party countries that were made using US equipment or technology are barred from export to Russia no matter who makes them or where. The US and Europe are construing a technical argument that, well, these are US technologies, and it's ok to block trading with them in Dollars because the US technically owns all dollars, but the effect is to coerce many third parties into unwillingly participating in the blockade. Technically no it's not really an act of war. In practice it's absolutely a direct attack on the Russian economy and if not an act of war definitely an act of explicit aggression. I say this as someone who fully and wholeheartedly supports these sanctions and believes they are well deserved. They are the right thing to do. I wish we were doing a lot, lot more and as soon as we can stop buying their oil and gas too the better.

thallium205 5y ago

No. Sanctions are weapons of mass destruction. They starve and kill the poorest in a nation. It's akin to carpet bombing a town without explosions. This is not hyperbole. Look to history at the destruction of sanctions.

vaidhy 5y ago
I have no idea why this is being down-voted. This is the truth. People in western europe have no idea what it means to live under scarcity. Take Sri Lanka for e.g. - not even under sanction, but lack foreign reserves. Long blackouts, disruption of normal life since petrol (gasoline) is not always available. Eventual food shortages because fertilizer needs to be imported. Now think of another country under sanctions - even hope of better future is being crushed.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  It's getting downvoted because westerners have been whipped up into a bloodlust frenzy towards Russia. Just like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, those who speak against the destruction will be derided as unpatriotic, freedom hating traitors.
anonporridge 5y ago
100%. Sanctions are a WMD that simply have a nice level of deniability. We don't have to see the mass destruction and pain they cause, because it's not a direct explosion like a bomb, but the ultimate effect is much the same like you say.

brandall10 5y ago

Silent treatment is cutting off diplomatic ties. Sanctions is starvation of resources, potentially impacting the war effort directly but indirectly by causing civil unrest. I agree it’s certainly not the same as direct warfare, but its definitely somewhere in the middle, and can particularly castostrophic when done in a concerted multilateral fashion (ie. North Korea).

LanceH 5y ago
Sanctions is not feeding them -- but doing nothing to stop them from feeding themselves. Certainly not stopping them from behaving nicely and getting to interact again. War is shooting people dead. There is a stark difference.
- stormbrew 5y ago
  In the modern world, no country is self-sufficient. This isn't even an accident, it's an explicit goal of the modern liberal economic system, partly to try to dampen the conditions that lead to war. At any rate, sanctions create consequences for trade for third parties as well, so any country that doesn't come along on it will also face the possibility of being shut off from trade with the EU, the US, and the rest of their allied nations. No country in the world save China can endure that for long without completely destabilizing their economy and their legal order. And make no mistake, people will die due to these sanctions. Russia's medical system will not endure lack of trade for long, and it's likely there will be food shortages as well. This is entirely independent of whether or not it's the right thing to do. People need to understand that these actions have real human consequences, whether they agree with the cost or not. Sanctions as enacted here are not "I'm not talking to you", they're "I will punch anyone who keeps talking to you." Also, I guarantee you that if a country sanctioned the US in a way that actually impacted the american economy (again, probably only China could pull this off right now), the US would consider it an act of aggression. Just nationalizing American interests has been cause for American intervention before.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    > Sanctions as enacted here are not "I'm not talking to you", they're "I will punch anyone who keeps talking to you." Hardly. We are’t going to bomb a country that goes against the sanctions. They will just also be sanctioned. We are forcing people to pick a side to do business with, not punching them.

qiskit 5y ago

No. Economic sanctions are an act of war. Just like blockading a port is an act of war. War doesn't necessarily mean killing human beings. You could bomb an empty munitions factory and it would be an act of war. Economic sanctions is the rich nations' weapon. It's a weapon that only a wealthy nation can wield. It's why there is so much support for it amongst rich nations. Certainly if anyone destabilized the american or european economies with sanctions, we'd definitely call it an act of war. > From a schoolyard perspective, economic sanctions are like giving a peer the silent treatment. No. It would be like Bezos saying if anyone does business with you, they'll be cut off from amazon. It's saying anyone who does business with russia is going to get attacked. It's why china was attacked for trading with iran when china doesn't have any economic sanctions on iran. It's saying the whole world can't do business with russia. All wars are fundamentally economic wars. But we usually cloak it around noble virtues like 'freedom, god, democracy, 'kill nazis', etc' because it's so tacky and shameful to be attacking each other for money. Makes you no better than common criminal. A lousy thief at that. Surely, the leaders of Russia, US, NATO, etc are better than some lousy neighborhood thief. Right?

erdos4d 5y ago
> Economic sanctions are an act of war. This 100%. I'm seriously wondering how all these people supporting heavy sanctions will feel when Putin realizes he can't win via conventional means and his economy is destroyed, so he starts nuking things.
- InsaneOstrich 5y ago
  What's the alternative? Doing nothing while Russia invades countries in Eastern Europe one after the other?
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Ensuring Ukraine's neutrality instead of sacrificing it as a pawn?
    - 5y ago

pmorici 5y ago

There is historical precedent for economic sanctions leading to war. Notability the US froze Japanese assets in the US and embargoed selling US oil to them in July 1941. Less than 5 months later the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. You aren’t wrong but you also have to consider that economic sanctions have historically been a precursor if not the friction point that caused a war.

syntaxing 5y ago
I’m not sure if that’s a fair cause and effect statement though. Most sanctions were placed to pressure the opposite side without going to war and arguably prevent physical conflict. Hard to say the hypothetical result, but the timeline would of been, no sanctions and go to war anyway or push for sanctions and hope it’s enough to scare the opposite party but if it fails, you go to war anyway
- pmorici 5y ago
  The point is one shouldn’t be so naive that you fool yourself into thinking that the range of possible responses to sanctions doesn’t include war. Analogies of sanctions being like giving the school yard bully the cold shoulder seem like just such a naive interpretation given how they have played out historically. I’m not saying they can’t work or that they shouldn’t be used just to be aware of the full range of possible outcomes.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    There is also the other side to consider. By not boycotting or sanctioning an aggressor you're supporting their efforts by supplying material or funds through trade. When a government has a proven record of bullying or annexing their neighbors I think boycotting is the least one can do. And collective sanctions among allies is a reasonable next step where diplomacy fails. In the case of Russia sanctions weren't even enough to stop them after they annexed Crimea. No one wants to continuously cave into a bully then pretend it's "peace in our time".

coldtea 5y ago

>Surely this will be an interesting event, but the title alone seems to compare economic sanctions with war, unfairly in my opinion. Well, some sanctions had more casualties than some wars.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
An important distinction is that a sanctioned country can change their own behavior to end the suffering. (I.e. retreat to the previous borders or stop the genocide.) And without having to deal with complications like foreign armies killing and capturing. War usually involves another country directly causing harm and suffering to an aggressor. To escape the aggressor often must capitulate completely.

jmbwell 5y ago

Except that the peer you’re giving the silent treatment provides oil, gas, and metals to every part of the world that isn’t North America. Your point is taken, it’s not physically blowing someone up. But from the global perspective, isolating Russia with sanctions removes them from the economy in the same way bombing Moscow would, while leaving alive people who might have a chance of changing the course of the conflict. You don’t have to kill an enemy to neutralize it. In fact it’s quicker, easier, cheaper, and more effective not to. But it is still every bit an act of war — wrecking the global economy is also “really fucking bad.” And besides all that, if people getting blown up is what you’re looking for, it’s still early days yet. This is all far from over. And even if it stopped tomorrow, we will be dealing with the ramifications of this for years.

simonh 5y ago

Sanctions of the kind now being imposed on Russia, and previous imposed on North Korea are the modern equivalent of a siege to starve your opponent out. It's not just a matter of abstaining from trading with them, the US and Europe are blockading trade by third parties as well. Even the bank of China has suspended dealings with some Russian banks because doing so would incur legal penalties on them from the US. Even parts manufactured in third party countries that were made using US equipment or technology are barred from export to Russia no matter who makes them or where. The US and Europe are construing a technical argument that, well, these are US technologies, and it's ok to block trading with them in Dollars because the US technically owns all dollars, but the effect is to coerce many third parties into unwillingly participating in the blockade. Technically no it's not really an act of war. In practice it's absolutely a direct attack on the Russian economy and if not an act of war definitely an act of explicit aggression. I say this as someone who fully and wholeheartedly supports these sanctions and believes they are well deserved. They are the right thing to do. I wish we were doing a lot, lot more and as soon as we can stop buying their oil and gas too the better.