4 ms·

You are wrong. While I agree that these broad-based sanctions result in collateral economic damage to everyday Russian citizens, they have an important role in

You are wrong. While I agree that these broad-based sanctions result in collateral economic damage to everyday Russian citizens, they have an important role in starving the Russian state of the resources it needs to continue to wage conventional war in the medium to long term.

jmyeet 5y ago
> ... they have an important role ... Your argument is that it's "justified violence", which, as you'll note, is still violence. > ... they have an important role in starving the Russian state of the resources it needs to continue to wage conventional war in the medium to long term. Ok, so when have sanctions ever worked? You might be able to make a case for South Africa but when else? Has it ever resulted in regime change? Or a policy change? Ever? Russia has energy independence, natural resources and can probably feed itself. It is a nculear power so there are no military options here so we're not going to soften up Russia for invasion (as you might be able to argue for smaller countries). And it seems Russia is prepared to weather this storm for an extended period. The invasion will fail because it was never going to succeed. I'm sure there'll be no shortage of politicans to take credit for this (sanctions included) but ultimately Russia can't extend supply lines across Ukraine, any puppet government is doomed to be overthrown immediately (people forget the USSR installed a puppet government in Kabul and had basically the same problem) and Russia just doesn't have the manpower to occupy a country of 44 million people and suppress an insurgency.
- shock-value 5y ago
  They don't need to result in regime change nor policy change. If the sanctions lead to fewer munitions produced or soldiers fed, then they have a justified benefit, even if the overall arc of the conflict is otherwise the same.

4 ms·

You are wrong. While I agree that these broad-based sanctions result in collateral economic damage to everyday Russian citizens, they have an important role in

by shock-value 5y ago

jmyeet 5y ago
> ... they have an important role ... Your argument is that it's "justified violence", which, as you'll note, is still violence. > ... they have an important role in starving the Russian state of the resources it needs to continue to wage conventional war in the medium to long term. Ok, so when have sanctions ever worked? You might be able to make a case for South Africa but when else? Has it ever resulted in regime change? Or a policy change? Ever? Russia has energy independence, natural resources and can probably feed itself. It is a nculear power so there are no military options here so we're not going to soften up Russia for invasion (as you might be able to argue for smaller countries). And it seems Russia is prepared to weather this storm for an extended period. The invasion will fail because it was never going to succeed. I'm sure there'll be no shortage of politicans to take credit for this (sanctions included) but ultimately Russia can't extend supply lines across Ukraine, any puppet government is doomed to be overthrown immediately (people forget the USSR installed a puppet government in Kabul and had basically the same problem) and Russia just doesn't have the manpower to occupy a country of 44 million people and suppress an insurgency.
- shock-value 5y ago
  They don't need to result in regime change nor policy change. If the sanctions lead to fewer munitions produced or soldiers fed, then they have a justified benefit, even if the overall arc of the conflict is otherwise the same.