5 ms·

Reminder that the goal is hinderance of aggression by the Russian government, not punishment of the Russian people. Having said that, I bet Microsoft knows whi

by jl6 5y ago

Reminder that the goal is hinderance of aggression by the Russian government, not punishment of the Russian people. Having said that, I bet Microsoft knows which licenses are owned by the Russian government specifically.

brimble 5y ago
> Reminder that the goal is hinderance of aggression by the Russian government, not punishment of the Russian people. Hindrance of aggression by the Russian government.... by wrecking their economy. Yes, the Russian people, being the economy, are the target, unavoidably.
lottin 5y ago
The goal is to cripple the Russian economy, which in turn will hinder their war efforts.
siskiyou 5y ago
The entire Russian economy needs to be punished as much as possible in as short a time as possible. This unavoidably hurts everyone.
- zo1 5y ago
  That sounds great, till the union dissolves and nukes start being divided up amongst a dozen Russian "oligarch" mini states and all the corruption that will ensue. Either that or the nukes and tanks start flying out of Russia in retaliation. I honestly don't see how the west thinks this will go well, unless that's what they want.
  - brabel 5y ago
    > till the union dissolves and nukes start being divided up amongst a dozen Russian "oligarch" mini states and all the corruption that will ensue you've just described almost exactly Russia in the 1990's.
    - LAC-Tech 5y ago
      During which time democracy became a dirty word and they were ready to embrace a strongman leader... So honestly yeah I'm not seeing an amazing end state with this "let's punish the Russian people so they overthrow their government" strategy. In 1917 they did and got a bloody civil war. In 1991 they did that and had years of civil instability and an economic crisis. What makes people think in 2022 it would be better?
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    Well, what's the alternative? Surrender everything to Russia and hope they decide not to nuke us anyway? The west has drawn the line in the sand at military intervention and at some point we have to draw this line.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > That sounds great, till the union dissolves and nukes start being divided up amongst a dozen Russian "oligarch" mini states and all the corruption that will ensue. My read of the hivemind sentiments on that would be "Russia has no justification to do that!" Whether popular memes are substantial protection from nuclear weapons seems questionable, but it seems to be overwhelming consensus opinion that this is the way to think about such things so who knows. What's that saying, when everyone's thinking the same, nobody's thinking?
- ralfd 5y ago
  > The entire Russian economy needs to be punished as much as possible in as short a time as possible. This unavoidably hurts everyone. Sanctions can work too well. After the US embargoed all oil to imperial Japan their navy calculated they only had fuel left for two years, which led to the attack of Pearl Harbor.
michaelmrose 5y ago
Their sons and daughters are in a foreign country murdering children and shooting fleeing civilians. We aren't talking about dropping cluster munitions on them like they are on Ukrainians. They are a perfectly legitimate target for economic actions.
Pet_Ant 5y ago
> Reminder that the goal is hinderance of aggression by the Russian government, not punishment of the Russian people. Is it? Or is the goal to turn the people of Russia against the Russian government for putting them into this position, perhaps even triggering regime change.
- brabel 5y ago
  You know, it was pretty clear that Russia was willing to go to war to stop Ukraine joining NATO. They said so multiple times since the first time the objective was announced, in 2008 I think, which was followed by the Russian war on Georgia for the same reason... and the annexation of Krimea also had the same root cause... so I am convinced the war could have been stopped, but the West made absolutely no effort to do so. Do you remember when Russia sent the "ultimatum" to the USA and the answer was that none of the Russian demands even merited consideration? They knew then that this response would lead to a war. Therefore, I believe there's reason to believe the West willingly allowed Russia to enter this war, perhaps with exact this goal: causing Russia to go broke (similar to what happened to the USSR in Afghanistan, which was also assisted heavily by the West at the time) over a gigantic conflict (and sanctions), forcing a regime change in Russia, finally, at the cost of a totally destroyed Ukraine. Maybe the West thought the cost (thousands of Ukrainians and Russian dead, two destroyed economies, another generation of people who can't trust their neighbours anymore, increased military spending) was acceptable?
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > … so I am convinced the war could have been stopped, but the West made absolutely no effort to do so. Conspiracy theories aside, avoiding war at all costs by capitulating to the aggressor's demands without a fight is not a sustainable approach. Sure, Russia was strongly and publicly opposed to Ukraine joining NATO, to the point of threatening war over it… but that isn't their decision to make. Russia is still the unjustified invader here and the only one at fault—not Ukraine for seeking NATO membership or the other NATO members for considering the application.
    - 5y ago
vkou 5y ago
> Reminder that the goal is hinderance of aggression by the Russian government, not punishment of the Russian people. The goal is both. You can't meaningfully punish a government without also punishing its people. The current sanctions are absolutely crippling to the Russian domestic economy. Their exporting businesses are dead in the water. What remains of their industry completely depends on imports, which have no stopped. In their personal lives, they are accustomed to buying foreign goods, as basic as furniture. Russia currently doesn't manufacture enough furniture to meet its domestic needs... And doesn't manufacture enough manufacturing machinery to build said furniture factories, even if it wanted to. So, you tell me, does mass unemployment, inability to buy basic consumer goods, and a collapse in purchasing power do - does it punish a government, its people, or both?
CamperBob2 5y ago
The Russian people are the only ones who can stop Putin without triggering a nuclear conflict with NATO. So far, they're not doing their job. Maybe we haven't incentivized them sufficiently.
- int_19h 5y ago
  The Russian government offers its own incentives, in form of prison terms for anyone who so much as utters the word "war". 12k people arrested in protests so far, and counting. >4k in a single day recently.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  Keep in mind that "their job" in this scenario means revolution against a government that is more than willing to lock you away in Siberia for 15 years. It's a steep expectation and we shouldn't be surprised when most citizens don't volunteer to forgo their livelihoods and everything they've built up so far for the cause.

by jl6 5y ago

brimble 5y ago

> Reminder that the goal is hinderance of aggression by the Russian government, not punishment of the Russian people. Hindrance of aggression by the Russian government.... by wrecking their economy. Yes, the Russian people, being the economy, are the target, unavoidably.

lottin 5y ago

The goal is to cripple the Russian economy, which in turn will hinder their war efforts.

siskiyou 5y ago

The entire Russian economy needs to be punished as much as possible in as short a time as possible. This unavoidably hurts everyone.

zo1 5y ago
That sounds great, till the union dissolves and nukes start being divided up amongst a dozen Russian "oligarch" mini states and all the corruption that will ensue. Either that or the nukes and tanks start flying out of Russia in retaliation. I honestly don't see how the west thinks this will go well, unless that's what they want.
- brabel 5y ago
  > till the union dissolves and nukes start being divided up amongst a dozen Russian "oligarch" mini states and all the corruption that will ensue you've just described almost exactly Russia in the 1990's.
  - LAC-Tech 5y ago
    During which time democracy became a dirty word and they were ready to embrace a strongman leader... So honestly yeah I'm not seeing an amazing end state with this "let's punish the Russian people so they overthrow their government" strategy. In 1917 they did and got a bloody civil war. In 1991 they did that and had years of civil instability and an economic crisis. What makes people think in 2022 it would be better?
- Sebb767 5y ago
  Well, what's the alternative? Surrender everything to Russia and hope they decide not to nuke us anyway? The west has drawn the line in the sand at military intervention and at some point we have to draw this line.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > That sounds great, till the union dissolves and nukes start being divided up amongst a dozen Russian "oligarch" mini states and all the corruption that will ensue. My read of the hivemind sentiments on that would be "Russia has no justification to do that!" Whether popular memes are substantial protection from nuclear weapons seems questionable, but it seems to be overwhelming consensus opinion that this is the way to think about such things so who knows. What's that saying, when everyone's thinking the same, nobody's thinking?
ralfd 5y ago
> The entire Russian economy needs to be punished as much as possible in as short a time as possible. This unavoidably hurts everyone. Sanctions can work too well. After the US embargoed all oil to imperial Japan their navy calculated they only had fuel left for two years, which led to the attack of Pearl Harbor.

michaelmrose 5y ago

Their sons and daughters are in a foreign country murdering children and shooting fleeing civilians. We aren't talking about dropping cluster munitions on them like they are on Ukrainians. They are a perfectly legitimate target for economic actions.

Pet_Ant 5y ago

> Reminder that the goal is hinderance of aggression by the Russian government, not punishment of the Russian people. Is it? Or is the goal to turn the people of Russia against the Russian government for putting them into this position, perhaps even triggering regime change.

brabel 5y ago
You know, it was pretty clear that Russia was willing to go to war to stop Ukraine joining NATO. They said so multiple times since the first time the objective was announced, in 2008 I think, which was followed by the Russian war on Georgia for the same reason... and the annexation of Krimea also had the same root cause... so I am convinced the war could have been stopped, but the West made absolutely no effort to do so. Do you remember when Russia sent the "ultimatum" to the USA and the answer was that none of the Russian demands even merited consideration? They knew then that this response would lead to a war. Therefore, I believe there's reason to believe the West willingly allowed Russia to enter this war, perhaps with exact this goal: causing Russia to go broke (similar to what happened to the USSR in Afghanistan, which was also assisted heavily by the West at the time) over a gigantic conflict (and sanctions), forcing a regime change in Russia, finally, at the cost of a totally destroyed Ukraine. Maybe the West thought the cost (thousands of Ukrainians and Russian dead, two destroyed economies, another generation of people who can't trust their neighbours anymore, increased military spending) was acceptable?
- nybble41 5y ago
  > … so I am convinced the war could have been stopped, but the West made absolutely no effort to do so. Conspiracy theories aside, avoiding war at all costs by capitulating to the aggressor's demands without a fight is not a sustainable approach. Sure, Russia was strongly and publicly opposed to Ukraine joining NATO, to the point of threatening war over it… but that isn't their decision to make. Russia is still the unjustified invader here and the only one at fault—not Ukraine for seeking NATO membership or the other NATO members for considering the application.
  - 5y ago

vkou 5y ago

> Reminder that the goal is hinderance of aggression by the Russian government, not punishment of the Russian people. The goal is both. You can't meaningfully punish a government without also punishing its people. The current sanctions are absolutely crippling to the Russian domestic economy. Their exporting businesses are dead in the water. What remains of their industry completely depends on imports, which have no stopped. In their personal lives, they are accustomed to buying foreign goods, as basic as furniture. Russia currently doesn't manufacture enough furniture to meet its domestic needs... And doesn't manufacture enough manufacturing machinery to build said furniture factories, even if it wanted to. So, you tell me, does mass unemployment, inability to buy basic consumer goods, and a collapse in purchasing power do - does it punish a government, its people, or both?

CamperBob2 5y ago

The Russian people are the only ones who can stop Putin without triggering a nuclear conflict with NATO. So far, they're not doing their job. Maybe we haven't incentivized them sufficiently.

int_19h 5y ago
The Russian government offers its own incentives, in form of prison terms for anyone who so much as utters the word "war". 12k people arrested in protests so far, and counting. >4k in a single day recently.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
Keep in mind that "their job" in this scenario means revolution against a government that is more than willing to lock you away in Siberia for 15 years. It's a steep expectation and we shouldn't be surprised when most citizens don't volunteer to forgo their livelihoods and everything they've built up so far for the cause.