5 ms·

The tax income produced by those people is being used to fund the war. It is unfortunate but it's better to have a person become poor than another person being

The tax income produced by those people is being used to fund the war. It is unfortunate but it's better to have a person become poor than another person being bombed. Ín a world without nukes they would be bombed too right now, because wars have a tendency of doing that regardless of who fights.

dan-robertson 5y ago
I think a counter argument is that these measures allow the situation to be described in Russia as a ‘west vs Russia’ situation which lines up well with media narratives people have been hearing for years rather than a ‘Russian army sent to kill Ukrainians’ which is less popular (eg many Russians will have close ties to some people in Ukraine). It feels to me that the best thing western governments could do is to signal reasonable conditions under which sanctions would be instantly lifted and give Russia a way to back down, though it isn’t clear to me what that way would be.
- sharpneli 5y ago
  It's abundantly clear what the conditions are: Stop the attack against their neighbour and the sanctions are lifted. Anything less let's Putin get away once again. And right now every country in Europe, and their citizens, are sick of Putin getting away every single time. I do have a personal stake in this. We're the only western neighbour of Russia that is not in NATO and has not been attacked by them after the fall of Soviet Union. We're basically next, and it wouldn't be the first time Russia would "defend" itself by driving tanks here. I heard enough stories from my grandparents who had to flee due to them. I thought that it's a thing of the past, but it very clearly is not.
  - ddalex 5y ago
    > : Stop the attack against their neighbour and the sanctions are lifted. That would be too easy - there needs to be war reparations paid to Ukraine too - although nothing will bring back the lost lives. So what about - yes, sanctions lifted, and the 300 billion Russian state stashed away is given to Ukraine.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >We're the only western neighbour of Russia that is not in NATO and has not been attacked by them after the fall of Soviet Union. We're basically next Moldova?
    - sharpneli 5y ago
      Moldova has a separatist area maintained by Russian troops. Transnistria. So in a way Russia has already attacked them, though not yet tried to conquer, yet. Also Moldova shares no land border with Russia, yet (and very much hopefully not). Finland is the only land border sharing non nato country left.
      - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        What makes you think Russia would invade Finland? I seriously doubt that would happen.
        sharpneli 5y ago
        I recommend reading some material about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics It's very influential book in Russia that has influenced their policy goals. It was written in 1997. A lot of it feels rather prescient considering the current world situation, which is likely not a surprise. What they considered for US was that they should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics" UK was to be cut off from European politics and Germany should be the new lead of central Europe. Well, UK did distance itself. And up to few weeks ago Germany was the one most against united front against Russia. There is plenty of other stuff there. Annexation of Ukraine is just one of them (alongside annexation of Belarus which they have de facto achieved). Annexation of Finland is one of the goals too. Hence I have no doubts that it would happen at some point.
        5y ago
  - dan-robertson 5y ago
    It’s clear those conditions are necessary but not that they are sufficient. There must be a path where it is obvious to the Russian people and leadership that if certain things are done then the sanctions will be immediately lifted. Currently it seems plausible that sanctions could remain after meeting those conditions as a kind of punishment, or just because they can be sticky (that is, easier to impose than to retract). If one is to believe that the reason for the war is entirely Putin, and if the people and others in power understood that removing Putin/ending the war would lead to a lifting of the sanctions and potentially significant improvements to the status quo before the war, there would be much stronger incentives to do that. Without knowing that sanctions would be lifted, someone who replaced Putin would be left in the unenviable position of t dealing with the economic consequences of the earlier sanctions/foreign business exits. For similar reasons there should be a way for Russia to pull out while saving face so that the cost of doing it is less. It seems unlikely to me that Putin will be replaced because of the war so, if one is to believe that he particularly cares about his image and perception, having a face-saving route out is particularly important. But I don’t know what that would look like.
lowkey 5y ago
Meanwhile the White House Press secretary, yesterday, defended the US decision to continue buying Russian oil. Since the US is also directly funding the Russian’s ability to wage war in Ukraine, would you advocate for the US and other Western countries who continue to buy Russian Oil to sanction themselves?
- sharpneli 5y ago
  Germany also buys Russian gas. It's basically the last thing Russia has to lose anymore. If they escalate the conflict even more (by even more brutally bombing civilians) I'd be surprised if energy was not part of the sanctions. In essence it is to maintain some leverage, on top of the usual practical and selfish reasons. In addition Americans are notoriously sensitive to the price of gas (in a similar vein the joke goes that Russia has had two price spikes in Vodka, first in 1917 and second in 1991, maybe we'll get third one soon). If it rises too much they might start to oppose the whole being uppity to Russians thing going on now, which would be bad.
  - lowkey 5y ago
    If I understand correctly, you are fine with broad economic sanctions on everyday Russians, most of whom are already poor especially after the collapse of the Ruble - and who frankly don’t have as much say over their authoritarian governments as American or German citizens who enjoy living in liberal democracies. At the same time you excuse rich countries such as the US or Germany who actively choose to continue to buy oil from authoritarian regimes even as they invade our allies - simply because buying oil elsewhere would be expensive and politically inconvenient. I don’t understand your logic. Remember, the sanctions against average Russians will absolutely result in shortages of food, medicine and other essential supplies. Many everyday Russians will likely starve or die from these sanctions. This isn’t about how quickly they can replace their old iPhones.
    - sharpneli 5y ago
      > simply because buying oil elsewhere would be expensive and politically inconvenient. Like I mentioned in the previous post, the main reason is to keep some leverage. It's the biggest financial sanction that can be thrown at them. Essentially all other sanctions were taken, but the last one was kept unused. If Putin escalates against civilians this sanction would likely be used too.
lowkey 5y ago
I just learned that 50% of Russian government tax receipts come from oil & gas revenue. With one simple decision - banning oil & gas imports - we could devestate Putin’s ability to wage war and it would impose less direct hardship on everyday Russians? To protect civilians from higher energy costs in Ukraine and EU western governments could temporarily provide direct subsidies. This seems like an idea worth trying. What am I missing?

dan-robertson 5y ago

I think a counter argument is that these measures allow the situation to be described in Russia as a ‘west vs Russia’ situation which lines up well with media narratives people have been hearing for years rather than a ‘Russian army sent to kill Ukrainians’ which is less popular (eg many Russians will have close ties to some people in Ukraine). It feels to me that the best thing western governments could do is to signal reasonable conditions under which sanctions would be instantly lifted and give Russia a way to back down, though it isn’t clear to me what that way would be.

sharpneli 5y ago
It's abundantly clear what the conditions are: Stop the attack against their neighbour and the sanctions are lifted. Anything less let's Putin get away once again. And right now every country in Europe, and their citizens, are sick of Putin getting away every single time. I do have a personal stake in this. We're the only western neighbour of Russia that is not in NATO and has not been attacked by them after the fall of Soviet Union. We're basically next, and it wouldn't be the first time Russia would "defend" itself by driving tanks here. I heard enough stories from my grandparents who had to flee due to them. I thought that it's a thing of the past, but it very clearly is not.
- ddalex 5y ago
  > : Stop the attack against their neighbour and the sanctions are lifted. That would be too easy - there needs to be war reparations paid to Ukraine too - although nothing will bring back the lost lives. So what about - yes, sanctions lifted, and the 300 billion Russian state stashed away is given to Ukraine.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >We're the only western neighbour of Russia that is not in NATO and has not been attacked by them after the fall of Soviet Union. We're basically next Moldova?
  - sharpneli 5y ago
    Moldova has a separatist area maintained by Russian troops. Transnistria. So in a way Russia has already attacked them, though not yet tried to conquer, yet. Also Moldova shares no land border with Russia, yet (and very much hopefully not). Finland is the only land border sharing non nato country left.
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      What makes you think Russia would invade Finland? I seriously doubt that would happen.
      - sharpneli 5y ago
        I recommend reading some material about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics It's very influential book in Russia that has influenced their policy goals. It was written in 1997. A lot of it feels rather prescient considering the current world situation, which is likely not a surprise. What they considered for US was that they should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics" UK was to be cut off from European politics and Germany should be the new lead of central Europe. Well, UK did distance itself. And up to few weeks ago Germany was the one most against united front against Russia. There is plenty of other stuff there. Annexation of Ukraine is just one of them (alongside annexation of Belarus which they have de facto achieved). Annexation of Finland is one of the goals too. Hence I have no doubts that it would happen at some point.
      - 5y ago
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  It’s clear those conditions are necessary but not that they are sufficient. There must be a path where it is obvious to the Russian people and leadership that if certain things are done then the sanctions will be immediately lifted. Currently it seems plausible that sanctions could remain after meeting those conditions as a kind of punishment, or just because they can be sticky (that is, easier to impose than to retract). If one is to believe that the reason for the war is entirely Putin, and if the people and others in power understood that removing Putin/ending the war would lead to a lifting of the sanctions and potentially significant improvements to the status quo before the war, there would be much stronger incentives to do that. Without knowing that sanctions would be lifted, someone who replaced Putin would be left in the unenviable position of t dealing with the economic consequences of the earlier sanctions/foreign business exits. For similar reasons there should be a way for Russia to pull out while saving face so that the cost of doing it is less. It seems unlikely to me that Putin will be replaced because of the war so, if one is to believe that he particularly cares about his image and perception, having a face-saving route out is particularly important. But I don’t know what that would look like.

lowkey 5y ago

Meanwhile the White House Press secretary, yesterday, defended the US decision to continue buying Russian oil. Since the US is also directly funding the Russian’s ability to wage war in Ukraine, would you advocate for the US and other Western countries who continue to buy Russian Oil to sanction themselves?

sharpneli 5y ago
Germany also buys Russian gas. It's basically the last thing Russia has to lose anymore. If they escalate the conflict even more (by even more brutally bombing civilians) I'd be surprised if energy was not part of the sanctions. In essence it is to maintain some leverage, on top of the usual practical and selfish reasons. In addition Americans are notoriously sensitive to the price of gas (in a similar vein the joke goes that Russia has had two price spikes in Vodka, first in 1917 and second in 1991, maybe we'll get third one soon). If it rises too much they might start to oppose the whole being uppity to Russians thing going on now, which would be bad.
- lowkey 5y ago
  If I understand correctly, you are fine with broad economic sanctions on everyday Russians, most of whom are already poor especially after the collapse of the Ruble - and who frankly don’t have as much say over their authoritarian governments as American or German citizens who enjoy living in liberal democracies. At the same time you excuse rich countries such as the US or Germany who actively choose to continue to buy oil from authoritarian regimes even as they invade our allies - simply because buying oil elsewhere would be expensive and politically inconvenient. I don’t understand your logic. Remember, the sanctions against average Russians will absolutely result in shortages of food, medicine and other essential supplies. Many everyday Russians will likely starve or die from these sanctions. This isn’t about how quickly they can replace their old iPhones.
  - sharpneli 5y ago
    > simply because buying oil elsewhere would be expensive and politically inconvenient. Like I mentioned in the previous post, the main reason is to keep some leverage. It's the biggest financial sanction that can be thrown at them. Essentially all other sanctions were taken, but the last one was kept unused. If Putin escalates against civilians this sanction would likely be used too.

lowkey 5y ago

I just learned that 50% of Russian government tax receipts come from oil & gas revenue. With one simple decision - banning oil & gas imports - we could devestate Putin’s ability to wage war and it would impose less direct hardship on everyday Russians? To protect civilians from higher energy costs in Ukraine and EU western governments could temporarily provide direct subsidies. This seems like an idea worth trying. What am I missing?