6 ms·

I'm curious at what point do we decide to continue to serve Russians because the citizenry are still people. They still need food, energy, shelter, and securit

I'm curious at what point do we decide to continue to serve Russians because the citizenry are still people. They still need food, energy, shelter, and security. Just thinking about how far the pendulum can swing before it becomes immoral for other reasons.

DerArzt 5y ago
Isn't the whole point of sanctions to make the citizenry upset with the current state of affairs, and put pressure (protest or even revolution) if things get to bad?
- jopsen 5y ago
  Or maybe the point is to make Russia poor... Or maybe just do something, because doing nothing is the alternative.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    The alternative is direct military aid to Ukraine. But the West is too afraid to fight. So it'll keep pushing for sanctions, which it can later point at and say, "see, we did something!"
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      It’s not “afraid to fight”, it’s afraid of kickstarting WWIII and an escalation that might go nuclear. Nothing cowardly about that.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > alternative is direct military aid to Ukraine We're doing that. We're letting loose "one of the largest and fastest arms transfers in history" [1]. What we're avoiding is military intervention. Because, in one part, nukes. And because, in another part, the clear red line that is NATO membership. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-members-mount-huge-operation-to-resupply-ukrainian-fighters-11646761821 https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-members-mount-huge-operati...
    - jopsen 5y ago
      > But the West is too afraid to fight. If only... If only we would just cave, maybe everything would be fine (I don't know). At least it's not clear that fighting will solve anything.
      - int_19h 5y ago
        Why would it be fine? If you just cave, you tell Putin that he can take whatever he wants, so long as he threatens to nuke you if you don't let him. And all this talk about NATO being the "red line" is not particularly believable in context, either - I sincerely doubt that, if Russia threatens e.g. Latvia, US would be willing to risk escalation then if it doesn't do so now.
- aaplok 5y ago
  That doesn't really address OP's question. There is still a point where the goal of the sanctions is not worth the harm they cause to people.
- speed_spread 5y ago
  Sanctions can also make the citizens even more vulnerable to abuse from their own government. The power structure in Russia does not allow for much pushback, if at all.
- mfDjB 5y ago
  Is there a historical precedent for this outcome?
  - mediumsmart 5y ago
    I think North Korea was bombed into the stone age in the 50's and sanctioned graciously to this day. They cannot last much longer and will probably give up next week or have a revolution that will install a 'good' government soon. Sanctions work.
    - Etherlord87 5y ago
      To use your rhetoric... South Korea is bravely defending from North Korea, though with great losses. Not a day passes by without a tragic report of civilians bombed in their homes, or attacked during an evacuation from a sieged city. Sanctions against North Korea just don't work, we have to finally gather an army to invade North Korea and end this dragging war.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > the whole point of sanctions to make the citizenry upset with the current state of affairs Not really. There is a fast strategy and a slow strategy. The fast strategy aims to convince elites to change course. If Putin withdraws, he gets his economy back. That's unlikely here; the real targets are e.g. his generals. The slow strategy is about degrading capability. The slow strategy is a worst-case option for when the fast strategy fails. Smaller economies power smaller war machines. Brain drain, industrial decay and material shortages make unmanageable threats less potent. They also undermine the appeal of popular uprising. External pressure tends to bring people together, which in this case means tolerating eroding freedoms in exchange for security. And starving, broken people don't revolt. When we deploy long-term sanctions, we're putting a nation in international quarantine. For a nuclear state run by a lunatic, that makes sense. (For e.g. Cuba, Iran or Venezuela, I find it deplorable.)
jopsen 5y ago
> at what point do we decide to continue to serve Russians because the citizenry are still people. Hmm, lets ask the North Koreans! Sanctions don't make a better world, but it's better than bombs. We can also try another "Russian Reset", I think both Bush and Obama did a "Russian Reset" with Putin. If we don't want Russia to have a powerful military, sanctions is the least evil tool we have.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  I'm not sure your whole point. But there's a line of ethical thinking that says there are certain lines I won't cross, regardless of how bad you treat me. For me one of those would be to deny someone food and water from my own surplus. I understand that RedHat consulting is not the same, but as I see more and more companies pull out I wonder how long it will be until it's wheat, insulin, medical devices etc? The russian citizenry are not (directly) responsible for Putins insanity, nor for being brainwashed by state media.
  - jopsen 5y ago
    My point is that things are pretty bad in North Korea (they used to have famines not long ago). Yet, that didn't make us ease sanctions significantly. Did it? My point being: things can probably get very bad in Russia before we ease sanctions due to humanitarian concerns. Yes, it's a tragedy. Hopefully, all of this ends before it gets that far.
    - maerF0x0 5y ago
      > Yet, that didn't make us ease sanctions significantly. Did it? One could equally flip that. Did famines and sanctions make them our allies? No, it hasn't.
      - jopsen 5y ago
        Absolutely, that's tragedy of it. Sanctions won't make them surrender, or make them our friends. It'll just make the poor. The only good thing sanctions against North Korea did was: 1. Make their army poorly maintained, 2. Discourage others from doing similar tricks. I'm not even sure we were successful at (2).
prostoalex 5y ago
> They still need food, energy, shelter, and security. It kinda helps that their country is the major exporter of the first two. Not sure about construction materials, but it seems that whatever is missing will be readily supplied by China in exchange for the first two.
- mediumsmart 5y ago
  Maybe Coca Cola, Pepsi and McDonald's can get an exemption permit to help deteriorate the Russian health system. Win Win.
throw_m239339 5y ago
> They still need food, energy, shelter, and security. So do the Ukrainians, is Putin affording them that?
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  No, but i agree humanitarian aid given should be prioritized over continued trade. But I think it's rare there is a tradeoff there, little reason we cannot do both (continue subsistence trade with aggressor, provide humanitarian aid as we're able to defender)
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    The aggressor is bombing civilian knowingly and preventing them from escaping war, the aggressor is threatening NATO with nukes if they assist the people the aggressor massacres in any way. "Continuing trade with the aggressor" is telling the aggressor they can continue the slaughter of civilians in Ukraine with little consequences. That's immoral and unacceptable. All the aggressor has to do stop sanctions and businesses boycotting the aggressor is to stop the slaughter of Ukrainians and get out of Ukraine, it's pretty simple.

DerArzt 5y ago

Isn't the whole point of sanctions to make the citizenry upset with the current state of affairs, and put pressure (protest or even revolution) if things get to bad?

jopsen 5y ago
Or maybe the point is to make Russia poor... Or maybe just do something, because doing nothing is the alternative.
- int_19h 5y ago
  The alternative is direct military aid to Ukraine. But the West is too afraid to fight. So it'll keep pushing for sanctions, which it can later point at and say, "see, we did something!"
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    It’s not “afraid to fight”, it’s afraid of kickstarting WWIII and an escalation that might go nuclear. Nothing cowardly about that.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > alternative is direct military aid to Ukraine We're doing that. We're letting loose "one of the largest and fastest arms transfers in history" [1]. What we're avoiding is military intervention. Because, in one part, nukes. And because, in another part, the clear red line that is NATO membership. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-members-mount-huge-operation-to-resupply-ukrainian-fighters-11646761821 https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-members-mount-huge-operati...
  - jopsen 5y ago
    > But the West is too afraid to fight. If only... If only we would just cave, maybe everything would be fine (I don't know). At least it's not clear that fighting will solve anything.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Why would it be fine? If you just cave, you tell Putin that he can take whatever he wants, so long as he threatens to nuke you if you don't let him. And all this talk about NATO being the "red line" is not particularly believable in context, either - I sincerely doubt that, if Russia threatens e.g. Latvia, US would be willing to risk escalation then if it doesn't do so now.
aaplok 5y ago
That doesn't really address OP's question. There is still a point where the goal of the sanctions is not worth the harm they cause to people.
speed_spread 5y ago
Sanctions can also make the citizens even more vulnerable to abuse from their own government. The power structure in Russia does not allow for much pushback, if at all.
mfDjB 5y ago
Is there a historical precedent for this outcome?
- mediumsmart 5y ago
  I think North Korea was bombed into the stone age in the 50's and sanctioned graciously to this day. They cannot last much longer and will probably give up next week or have a revolution that will install a 'good' government soon. Sanctions work.
  - Etherlord87 5y ago
    To use your rhetoric... South Korea is bravely defending from North Korea, though with great losses. Not a day passes by without a tragic report of civilians bombed in their homes, or attacked during an evacuation from a sieged city. Sanctions against North Korea just don't work, we have to finally gather an army to invade North Korea and end this dragging war.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> the whole point of sanctions to make the citizenry upset with the current state of affairs Not really. There is a fast strategy and a slow strategy. The fast strategy aims to convince elites to change course. If Putin withdraws, he gets his economy back. That's unlikely here; the real targets are e.g. his generals. The slow strategy is about degrading capability. The slow strategy is a worst-case option for when the fast strategy fails. Smaller economies power smaller war machines. Brain drain, industrial decay and material shortages make unmanageable threats less potent. They also undermine the appeal of popular uprising. External pressure tends to bring people together, which in this case means tolerating eroding freedoms in exchange for security. And starving, broken people don't revolt. When we deploy long-term sanctions, we're putting a nation in international quarantine. For a nuclear state run by a lunatic, that makes sense. (For e.g. Cuba, Iran or Venezuela, I find it deplorable.)

jopsen 5y ago

> at what point do we decide to continue to serve Russians because the citizenry are still people. Hmm, lets ask the North Koreans! Sanctions don't make a better world, but it's better than bombs. We can also try another "Russian Reset", I think both Bush and Obama did a "Russian Reset" with Putin. If we don't want Russia to have a powerful military, sanctions is the least evil tool we have.

maerF0x0 5y ago
I'm not sure your whole point. But there's a line of ethical thinking that says there are certain lines I won't cross, regardless of how bad you treat me. For me one of those would be to deny someone food and water from my own surplus. I understand that RedHat consulting is not the same, but as I see more and more companies pull out I wonder how long it will be until it's wheat, insulin, medical devices etc? The russian citizenry are not (directly) responsible for Putins insanity, nor for being brainwashed by state media.
- jopsen 5y ago
  My point is that things are pretty bad in North Korea (they used to have famines not long ago). Yet, that didn't make us ease sanctions significantly. Did it? My point being: things can probably get very bad in Russia before we ease sanctions due to humanitarian concerns. Yes, it's a tragedy. Hopefully, all of this ends before it gets that far.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    > Yet, that didn't make us ease sanctions significantly. Did it? One could equally flip that. Did famines and sanctions make them our allies? No, it hasn't.
    - jopsen 5y ago
      Absolutely, that's tragedy of it. Sanctions won't make them surrender, or make them our friends. It'll just make the poor. The only good thing sanctions against North Korea did was: 1. Make their army poorly maintained, 2. Discourage others from doing similar tricks. I'm not even sure we were successful at (2).

prostoalex 5y ago

> They still need food, energy, shelter, and security. It kinda helps that their country is the major exporter of the first two. Not sure about construction materials, but it seems that whatever is missing will be readily supplied by China in exchange for the first two.

mediumsmart 5y ago
Maybe Coca Cola, Pepsi and McDonald's can get an exemption permit to help deteriorate the Russian health system. Win Win.

throw_m239339 5y ago

> They still need food, energy, shelter, and security. So do the Ukrainians, is Putin affording them that?

maerF0x0 5y ago
No, but i agree humanitarian aid given should be prioritized over continued trade. But I think it's rare there is a tradeoff there, little reason we cannot do both (continue subsistence trade with aggressor, provide humanitarian aid as we're able to defender)
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  The aggressor is bombing civilian knowingly and preventing them from escaping war, the aggressor is threatening NATO with nukes if they assist the people the aggressor massacres in any way. "Continuing trade with the aggressor" is telling the aggressor they can continue the slaughter of civilians in Ukraine with little consequences. That's immoral and unacceptable. All the aggressor has to do stop sanctions and businesses boycotting the aggressor is to stop the slaughter of Ukrainians and get out of Ukraine, it's pretty simple.