5 ms·

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

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.)

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.)