10 ms·

I don't really understand what the endgame of the sanctions and various actions are here. The idea that the populace will rise up seems like a super high risk

by throwaway22032 5y ago

I don't really understand what the endgame of the sanctions and various actions are here. The idea that the populace will rise up seems like a super high risk maneuver - it's like going all in. Like let's say it's X% Putin isn't in power next year. What happens in the other 100-X% case now they have nothing left to lose? Is the idea that we just say "right, that's it, Russia is isolated forever now" and there we are? e.g. "we" showed that trade doesn't work, so instead we go for a kind of indefinite containment strategy? It just feels like a really stupid path to go down in my view because once you eliminate interdependence via trade you've now removed another barrier to Russia just deciding to take another country. Sure, NATO, MAD and all of that - but all of that was already there anyway. Once you get to the point at which the Russian state sees loss of their own territory as being a declaration of war, I don't see anything other than full blown WW3 being on the table. If anyone tries to reclaim Crimea, the Donbass, or in a few weeks maybe other parts of Ukraine-now-Russia by force, SHTF. I feel like all of this is getting lost in accusations of propaganda or being on the right side of history or whatever else. There seems to be no realistic climbdown being presented, if Russia fully pull out tomorrow, what do they get back and when? Are governments even in control of this any more or has Moloch taken it and gone for a run?

bydo 5y ago
This is going to be a really out-there take on this, but what if, instead of pride and posturing, the Russian government changed their course because they realized what an awful thing this is for the Russian civilians they purportedly represent?
- anonporridge 5y ago
  Replace Russia with North Korea and ask the same question. Autocrats can hold power for a very long time with the asymmetric tools of oppression and control we have that are only getting more advanced with each passing version upgrade. And the more we cut a country and its people off from the rest of the world, the easier it is for the autocrat to maintain control.
  - number6 5y ago
    North Korea only exists because the Chinese government wills it. Maybe we are trading Russia for Taiwan to the Chinese with the option on an uprising as best case.
- nrvn 5y ago
  71% support the war. 71% have never traveled abroad. They watch government tv, trust Putin and trust propaganda. Most of them are on a very low wage, have got next to zero savings, financially illiterate, don’t know any foreign languages. 71% welcomes all sorts of isolation, sanctions. They don’t care if tomorrow all western companies shut down business in Russia. “Iran has coped, so do we”. All currently imposed sanctions hurt neither Putin nor his “electoral base”. Around 20% of the population in Russia are intelligent and educated people who don’t support that shit. Just because it is absolute bonkers to invade another country. Those 20-25% are badly beaten by sanctions. And they are fleeing Russia, or trying to restructure their businesses and lives in the new distopian reality. The majority of what is being imposed on Russia right now affects the vulnerable middle class in Russia. And they have two options: immigrate or (if immigration is not an option) shut their mouth and deal with the orwellian reality.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    > 71% welcomes all sorts of isolation, sanctions. They don’t care if tomorrow all western companies shut down business in Russia. “Iran has coped, so do we”. Yeah, this is strictly not true.
stonogo 5y ago
> if Russia fully pull out tomorrow, what do they get back and when Everything and immediately, is generally how it works. That's the climbdown. I don't get the pearl-clutching about being mean to a bully. And it's not like China has stopped trading with them. China as a trading partner is a hell of a long way from "nothing left to lose." Anyway judging by their performance in Ukraine, I'm not convinced they have enough shit left in them to reach a fan. Who's to say their nukes work any better than their air force?
- charcircuit 5y ago
  What happens if Ukraine surrenders or they conquer Ukraine? Does that also cause it to end?
  - richardw 5y ago
    I doubt it because half the value is signalling. If the signal is “if you win we stop” then putin will make sure he wins faster in future. And China too.
- SCHiM 5y ago
  For me that's actually 30% of my worry-o-meter. MAD works two ways, you have to convince the "other" side your tools work, but what if your stage performance sucks? What if they convince western military planners that a preemptive strike is a viable option? Where's the cutoff? 30 of their nukes reaching their targets? 60? 100? What if the west is certain they can take down their land based launch sites? What if they only need to concern themselves with the submarines? What if the west knows where those are? (Sonar has had huge developments 1990-$NOW) What if sonar technology has developed to a point the west have a fix on 50% of Russian subs? What then? MAD only works if MAD means MAD, not if MAD means 50% assured destruction... The loss of life, wealth and security if one side of this insane pact ever lets down their part of the deal...
- Ankaios 5y ago
  Everything and immediately, is generally how it works. I think Ukraine should demand more than returning to the pre-invasion state. I don't know exactly what, but it seems like they should shoot for some verifiable changes in Russia's government, laws, military, or the like, and tie them to milestones for sanction reduction. If nothing else, that might help anchor negotiations in Ukraine's direction.
BobbyJo 5y ago
> Like let's say it's 50% Putin isn't in power next year The world doesn't care who's in power so much as we care about what they do. >Is the idea that we just say "right, that's it, Russia is isolated forever now" and there we are? The idea is negative reinforcement. You get the belt until you stop doing the bad thing. Whether it's Putin or some other person, as long as they continue bombing, we continue sanctions. When they stop, we will likely stop. In fact, us stopping and them stopping will likely be brokered in a single deal. > e.g. "we" showed that trade doesn't work, so instead we go for a kind of indefinite containment strategy? Trade works just fine. It works so well, that not having it is a punishment. > It just feels like a really stupid path to go down in my view because once you eliminate interdependence via trade you've now removed another barrier to Russia just deciding to take another country. It won't stop hurting the Russian economy. Trade isn't just a bilateral political tool, it has real benefits to both parties. No matter how long you go without it, you will miss it. > Once you get to the point at which the Russian state sees loss of their own territory as being a declaration of war, I don't see anything other than full blown WW3 being on the table. If anyone tries to reclaim Crimea, the Donbass, or in a few weeks maybe other parts of Ukraine-now-Russia by force, SHTF. That's not really an action the western world is taking, so not sure what the criticism here is. "Russia has nukes, so if they want something we have to let them take it"? > I feel like all of this is getting lost in accusations of propaganda or being on the right side of history or whatever else. There seems to be no realistic climbdown being presented, if Russia fully pull out tomorrow, what do they get back and when? There is a ton of propaganda, but there are two very obvious climbdowns. Either Russia backs down, and so does the western world, or they don't and they continue to pay a huge economic price for an indeterminant (but likely not indefinite) amount of time. I'd bet my money we wind up in one of those two scenarios. > Are governments even in control of this any more or has Moloch taken it and gone for a run? I don't get the reference, but I don't think things are in as much of a tailspin as you seem to think. I could definitely be wrong, but I don't see a good case for that at the moment.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  > When they stop, we will likely stop. In fact, us stopping and them stopping will likely be brokered in a single deal. The devil is in the details. What does "us stopping and them stopping will likely be brokered in a single deal" mean? What about the scenario where Russia doesn't care about the West and continues to occupy Ukraine for months, maybe years, in the future? What happens if Ukraine capitulates? What are our answers for every scenario that could potentially happen? Right now I see a lot of "we apply pressure Until They Stop (TM)" but I don't see where "Until They Stop (TM)" ends unless we're planning to enter another Cold War where we sever communications with Russia forever.
istjohn 5y ago
Russia is holding the knife of thermonuclear war to the world's throat while it decimates cities full of men, women and children. Damn right we're going to do anything and everything in our power to cut them off from any source of aid or comfort. The alternative is direct military intervention, and no one wants to go down that road.
- ratsmack 5y ago
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    Countries prefer NATO, because of a malicious actor/bully at the door.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- blagie 5y ago
  76% of Americans want to go down that road, based on surveys around establishing a no fly zone over Ukraine. I do too. This is being played tactically rather than strategically. The knife of thermonuclear war will still be there in 5 years and in 50 years. If we cave to it, we lose in the long term: - Russia will do whatever it wants, until it crosses a line where we're drawn into WWIII; or - Other countries develop nuclear programs, if it gives a carte blanche to do anything they want Belarus is going nuclear, thanks to our (lack of) reaction. That's just a start of what's coming. Whether Putin launches nukes is up to Putin. It might be a bluff. It might not be. If it's not a bluff, we'll get to that point soon enough....
  - awb 5y ago
    Kennedy was able to blockade Cuba without the conflict escalating into nuclear war, so there is precedent. I honestly don’t see the strategic value in launching a 1st strike for an altercation outside your own territory. If Putin wants territory or a legacy, launching nukes is a failure because: 1) no one is around to care, or those that survived will always hate you 2) you end up destroying the very territory you wanted But then again, you’re only wrong once.
NicoJuicy 5y ago
1 - reduce war capacity of Putin's Russia by limiting money inflow through eg. taxes and loans 2 - limit cyber security risks worldwide 3 - limit propaganda/disinformation 4 - limit troop capacity, since Russia wants to use internal state propaganda for mobilizing troops/reservist The main take is that there won't be a world war, if Russia can't fund a world war.
- ivan90210 5y ago
  1 - there will be no Ukraine by the time any of current measures start hurting anyone other than pedestrians. the measures that would work are not being considered seriously by anyone that matters 2 - state-funded actors will still have access to the internet 3 - state agencies will still have access to the internet 4 - pedestrians will still have access to the intranet 5 - it doesn't do anything about the nukes, and as for the threat of Russian tanks rolling their way into Germany, which has been on everyone's minds for the past 8 years, well, don't you feel silly now
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    The question was what's the goal. It's not just limiting current war capacity, but also limiting future war capacity and funds. From my POV, that seems to be working. You say it isn't, based on what? > the measures that would work are not being considered seriously And what are successfull measures according to you? Additionally, you are severely underestimating what Russia requires to occupy Ukraine vs. Invading. They need an additional willing 500 k. Troops for that. They don't have the numbers and even their FSB report mentions that. Ps. His children live in Europe, i doubt he'll drop bombs here.
    - ivan90210 5y ago
      >From my POV, that seems to be working. You say it isn't, based on what? China. they're doing fine without the internet >And what are successfull measures according to you? military intervention from the US >Ps. His children live in Europe, i doubt he'll drop bombs here. I wish I had your certainty. I've given up trying to predict the future. I hope you're right
trhway 5y ago
>I don't really understand what the endgame of the sanctions and various actions are here. For example Chechnya is in Russia only as long as Russia transfers huge money there. Many other regions are somewhat similar. >The idea that the populace will rise The populace doesn't matter. The Russian elite got used to a comfortable life of mini-Gods, and they might finally decide that they don't want to go down with Putin, and instead they may want to just give up Putin and let the populace work to pay the damage to Ukraine while they are back into their London mansions.
- istjohn 5y ago
  Unfortunately, everything I've read suggests it's quite unlikely anyone will be willing or able to overthrow Putin. What sanctions can do is diminish Russia's strength so it is less able to prosecute the invasion of Ukraine[1]. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/sanctions-vladimir-putin-kremlin-russian-oligarchy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/sancti...
Lascaille 5y ago
- tragictrash 5y ago
  Could you cite one of these things you've seen before? Genuinely curious.
  - Lascaille 5y ago
    - tragictrash 5y ago
      That's not remotely the same as what you described in the first post.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  I think it's irresponsible to opine like this with no proof.
  - Lascaille 5y ago
    - tragictrash 5y ago
      I agree with Karrot. I also think it's irresponsible to keep digging the hole you're in
      - Lascaille 5y ago
        tragictrash 5y ago
john_moscow 5y ago
The actual sanctions imposed by actual governments do make sense - they target specific companies and oligarchs, attempting to incentivize them to ditch Putin. The rest is just virtue signaling. People feel that they need to do something, so they do something. Not entirely logical. Not centrally coordinated. Mostly, acting upon emotions. Same mechanism as cancel culture, just against an external enemy now. What baffles me more is the Russia's endgame here. Unlike Crimea and Donbass, the rest of Ukraine has always been much more anti-authoritarian than Russia. So annexing it would yield millions of highly pissed off disloyal population, that has nothing to lose, and blends fairly well Russians in a crowd. Recipe for decades of pretty bloody tensions if you ask me.
analyte123 5y ago
It’s more than an emotional overreaction - it’s a massive own goal. The globally connected internet (in addition to the many of the other American companies stopping operations in Russia) is a major source of soft power for the US. This is literally doing Russia’s work for them - they have been trying to partition networks and services for years so that they can be independent of American tech companies and what they consider their control and propaganda - and now at a critical point for data flows and Western media operations, the US is going to help them build the wall. It feels unreal.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  Indeed, this is amazing. First, destroy confidence in property rights by seizing central bank reserves (US debt). Why should anyone invest in US Govt debt after this, without a hefty political risk premium? Then, try to disconnect Russia from the internet. Why should anyone trust American tech after this? All this does in the end, is just hurting the regular people, who don't even have any input on the situation whatsoever. So, apparently Putin is a dictator, therefore we must punish people who didn't even elect him....? Is this sound logic? Meanwhile let's make sure with all sorts of carve outs that oligarchs still have their billions, but also make sure the Russian hoi polloi don't even have access to Western media. It seems to me, it's far simpler mentally to directly blame the vendors pulling out, rather than "Putin did something the West does all time, but it's only OK when they do it, not us. Then the West pressured their vendors into pulling out and reneging on contracts, which is only for our own good, therefore we must rise up and re-make Russia's political setup to Western preferences, so that we can use Apple Pay again". The conclusion of all this isn't going to be "We must rise up against Putin", but it will be simply "IKEA bad".
tragictrash 5y ago
It doesnt sound like they are trying to punish Russia, just encountering operational difficulties.
Barrin92 5y ago
what do you think the logic of the Cold War was? It was exactly this. Economic isolation and forcing them into a military arms race worked once. And Russia today is no match for the Soviet Union. We've had threats of nuclear annihilation and proxy wars literally for decades, the world didn't start in the 90s. Go watch some TV commercials from the 70s and 80s.(https://youtu.be/F0OPVi90-lg https://youtu.be/F0OPVi90-lg), this is how most of the latter half of the 20th century looked like.
- analyte123 5y ago
  That was when China had a GDP of $400B, as opposed to now ($15T).
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    So? It's not China that's marching on Kyiv.
    - newacc9 5y ago
      how can you say that when they are about to annex taiwan?
      - number6 5y ago
        Give them russia instead
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    and we're talking about a confrontation with Russia right now, not with China. If China wants to pay the bill for Russia's adventures they're free to do so, but from their ambivalent reaction it's pretty obvious that they're not to keen on it either. The West is 50% of the world's economy, Russia 2%. China knows this. There's no reason to instinctively flinch every time someone in the Kremlin or in Beijing throws a tantrum. Leadership in China and Russia responds to strength and making countries pay a price for moving borders violently is going to make the world more stable. The US and Europe aren't going to get nuked, where do you think the children of all those leaders live right now? You think they're gonna glass their own kids in those fancy apartments in Rotterdam, London or New York? It's just bluster.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
What alternatives, other than sanctions, do you think would be better?
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  It's the endgame I'm concerned with, the inevitable peace treaty, whether that's in a week or a century. Not the actions being taken at present. I suppose really all of this stuff takes place behind closed doors anyway and what we're seeing on the news is total bollocks.
  - forum_ghost 5y ago
    Russia and Japan still do not have a peace treaty from WW2. This can go on for a very long time.
    - Fatnino 5y ago
      My impression is that Russia was disappointed that the allies didn't invade Japan so they could grab that up too.
      - throw0101a 5y ago
        See also Manchuria: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria
- yucky 5y ago
  Officially reversing the post-coup additions to the Ukrainian Constitution that make direct overtures to joining NATO? Russia has made this clear since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They invaded Ukraine after the Ukrainian coup in 2014. In theory, this made it impossible for Ukraine to join NATO. And yet here they are pushing (or being pushed by the US) to join NATO, despite knowing this will 100% begin WWIII. So yes, the answer is what it always was. Ukraine can't join NATO, if they want peace with Russia. This is not a mystery.
hereforphone 5y ago
It's virtue signaling. Companies are trying to outdo one another in showing support. This is why we get insane things like Namecheap threatening to cancel domains belonging to anyone registering from Russia.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Pretty sure the namecheap thing was because they have 1000 Ukrainian employees who were threatening to quit in mass if Russia wasn't completely cut off.
logicalmonster 5y ago
The world has been taken hostage by the business model of the media: which is fear and outrage porn. Whatever narrative tugs at the heartstrings the most and gets the most clicks and shares becomes the only permitted reality that the mainstream public and government functions off of. The public is wholly ignorant of that region’s history and energy politics and everything involved yet yet they think they’re experts. You have people who are literally crying about this conflict and trying to get involved solely because the media told them that they had to care: most of these people never even noticed Russian invasions of Georgia and Ukraine before because they were never told to care.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  It's incredible how rapid and sticky the narrative shift has been. Literally from 24/7 covid to 24/7 ukraine in a matter of days. Are there ways to objectively measure narrative penetration, and how far back did the previous approved narrative slid on some objective measures: "eyeballs time spent" or something?
  - awb 5y ago
    > Literally from 24/7 covid to 24/7 ukraine in a matter of days Almost like these are really rare, important and newsworthy events.
- kcb 5y ago
  The first war of this scale in Europe since WW2...I wonder why it's on the news. I really despise this line of thinking. Are you saying you can't care about objectively innocent peoples homes, cities, lives being destroyed unless you have in depth knowledge of the regions history and energy politics? And honestly your assumption that most of these people don't remember Georgia or 2014 is ridiculous.
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    Caring about average people caught in the crossfire through no actions of their own is perfectly natural and great. If you're able to do something genuinely useful like give some housing to a refugee family who fled, hey good for you. It's the rush to only parrot the list of acceptable ideas that the media tells you that people are allowed to think, emotionally overreact and go out of your way to try and not try and understand the conflict, trying to shut Russia out of the world that's going to really escalate this. It's important to understand this region better: Russia has been talking about NATO/EU encroaching on them for about 20 years. There's bad stuff going on all around the region and most people are ignorant about everything other than the current news cycle. And yes, I stand firm on people not having a clue about recent history . Most people don't remember that they were in a state of mass panic about Omicron and Covid less than a month ago and have seamlessly transitioned to caring about the latest bad thing (TM) that they're told to consume.
throw_m239339 5y ago
> I don't really understand what the endgame of the sanctions and various actions are here. Simple, get Russia to stop killing Ukrainians and invading their country.
brentm 5y ago
I don't have a good read on the average Russian's opinion of Putin but I think a major risk here is these sanctions & pull outs having the opposite effect. If the main point of the effort is to drive a wedge between Putin and the people he really may be able to use this as a way to make it more of an "us" against "them" thing. Which then keeps him in power and he remains a risk for the world. Either way though it will likely work to depress their economy and make it more difficult for them to wage war on a larger scale that just takes a while to play out. Everyone keeps talking WW3 but the more I think about it the less worried I become. I think the only real risk to that is if Putin literally is an irrational mad man. As in he is hell bent on destroying the west even if the price is his own country and maybe the world. This is possible but not that likely. When you follow that logic he also isn't likely to go after a NATO country and expand the war because he can't win and rational people want to win. It's entirely possible that the yes men he has built into the Kremlin told him this whole thing was going to be a cake walk because they were afraid to tell him otherwise and had no idea. He may want this to end as much as the next guy but now needs to save face and show something for the massive problems that he created.
robbedpeter 5y ago
MAD would mean no way out. I think the theory goes like this: Putin going down is a way out, and there are younger, hungrier deadly men in the military, and really scary oligarchs and gangsters with the resources to give Putin a good fight. He can't unilaterally initiate nuclear conflict, because Russia put competent people and rules in place to avoid self-destruct failure modes. The idea is that the world makes it clear that the choices are massive conflict, up to and including nuclear, or taking Putin down. This puts Putin in the place between Russian rock and the nato hard place, giving him the option of backing down. If Putin just doesn't give a fuck anymore, if he is ill or just feeling like it's time to go out in a blaze of glory, we'll see what other actions the geniuses in power decide on.
threatofrain 5y ago
Economic isolation is the harshest move you can do short of direct military conflict. It may be that the right answer to military is military, but I'm okay with sanctions as a buffer before troops on the ground. As for WW3, what kind of WW3 do you imagine? What kind of multi-system war would that be? One where China and Saudi Arabia is standing with Russia? If Russia flies nukes then they will lose what little support they have in the world.
rosndo 5y ago
Why are you people so obsessed with regime change? Russia has to be severely penalized so that they or others don’t repeat the same actions in the future.

bydo 5y ago

This is going to be a really out-there take on this, but what if, instead of pride and posturing, the Russian government changed their course because they realized what an awful thing this is for the Russian civilians they purportedly represent?

anonporridge 5y ago
Replace Russia with North Korea and ask the same question. Autocrats can hold power for a very long time with the asymmetric tools of oppression and control we have that are only getting more advanced with each passing version upgrade. And the more we cut a country and its people off from the rest of the world, the easier it is for the autocrat to maintain control.
- number6 5y ago
  North Korea only exists because the Chinese government wills it. Maybe we are trading Russia for Taiwan to the Chinese with the option on an uprising as best case.
nrvn 5y ago
71% support the war. 71% have never traveled abroad. They watch government tv, trust Putin and trust propaganda. Most of them are on a very low wage, have got next to zero savings, financially illiterate, don’t know any foreign languages. 71% welcomes all sorts of isolation, sanctions. They don’t care if tomorrow all western companies shut down business in Russia. “Iran has coped, so do we”. All currently imposed sanctions hurt neither Putin nor his “electoral base”. Around 20% of the population in Russia are intelligent and educated people who don’t support that shit. Just because it is absolute bonkers to invade another country. Those 20-25% are badly beaten by sanctions. And they are fleeing Russia, or trying to restructure their businesses and lives in the new distopian reality. The majority of what is being imposed on Russia right now affects the vulnerable middle class in Russia. And they have two options: immigrate or (if immigration is not an option) shut their mouth and deal with the orwellian reality.
- rosndo 5y ago
  > 71% welcomes all sorts of isolation, sanctions. They don’t care if tomorrow all western companies shut down business in Russia. “Iran has coped, so do we”. Yeah, this is strictly not true.

stonogo 5y ago

> if Russia fully pull out tomorrow, what do they get back and when Everything and immediately, is generally how it works. That's the climbdown. I don't get the pearl-clutching about being mean to a bully. And it's not like China has stopped trading with them. China as a trading partner is a hell of a long way from "nothing left to lose." Anyway judging by their performance in Ukraine, I'm not convinced they have enough shit left in them to reach a fan. Who's to say their nukes work any better than their air force?

charcircuit 5y ago
What happens if Ukraine surrenders or they conquer Ukraine? Does that also cause it to end?
- richardw 5y ago
  I doubt it because half the value is signalling. If the signal is “if you win we stop” then putin will make sure he wins faster in future. And China too.
SCHiM 5y ago
For me that's actually 30% of my worry-o-meter. MAD works two ways, you have to convince the "other" side your tools work, but what if your stage performance sucks? What if they convince western military planners that a preemptive strike is a viable option? Where's the cutoff? 30 of their nukes reaching their targets? 60? 100? What if the west is certain they can take down their land based launch sites? What if they only need to concern themselves with the submarines? What if the west knows where those are? (Sonar has had huge developments 1990-$NOW) What if sonar technology has developed to a point the west have a fix on 50% of Russian subs? What then? MAD only works if MAD means MAD, not if MAD means 50% assured destruction... The loss of life, wealth and security if one side of this insane pact ever lets down their part of the deal...
Ankaios 5y ago
Everything and immediately, is generally how it works. I think Ukraine should demand more than returning to the pre-invasion state. I don't know exactly what, but it seems like they should shoot for some verifiable changes in Russia's government, laws, military, or the like, and tie them to milestones for sanction reduction. If nothing else, that might help anchor negotiations in Ukraine's direction.

BobbyJo 5y ago

> Like let's say it's 50% Putin isn't in power next year The world doesn't care who's in power so much as we care about what they do. >Is the idea that we just say "right, that's it, Russia is isolated forever now" and there we are? The idea is negative reinforcement. You get the belt until you stop doing the bad thing. Whether it's Putin or some other person, as long as they continue bombing, we continue sanctions. When they stop, we will likely stop. In fact, us stopping and them stopping will likely be brokered in a single deal. > e.g. "we" showed that trade doesn't work, so instead we go for a kind of indefinite containment strategy? Trade works just fine. It works so well, that not having it is a punishment. > It just feels like a really stupid path to go down in my view because once you eliminate interdependence via trade you've now removed another barrier to Russia just deciding to take another country. It won't stop hurting the Russian economy. Trade isn't just a bilateral political tool, it has real benefits to both parties. No matter how long you go without it, you will miss it. > Once you get to the point at which the Russian state sees loss of their own territory as being a declaration of war, I don't see anything other than full blown WW3 being on the table. If anyone tries to reclaim Crimea, the Donbass, or in a few weeks maybe other parts of Ukraine-now-Russia by force, SHTF. That's not really an action the western world is taking, so not sure what the criticism here is. "Russia has nukes, so if they want something we have to let them take it"? > I feel like all of this is getting lost in accusations of propaganda or being on the right side of history or whatever else. There seems to be no realistic climbdown being presented, if Russia fully pull out tomorrow, what do they get back and when? There is a ton of propaganda, but there are two very obvious climbdowns. Either Russia backs down, and so does the western world, or they don't and they continue to pay a huge economic price for an indeterminant (but likely not indefinite) amount of time. I'd bet my money we wind up in one of those two scenarios. > Are governments even in control of this any more or has Moloch taken it and gone for a run? I don't get the reference, but I don't think things are in as much of a tailspin as you seem to think. I could definitely be wrong, but I don't see a good case for that at the moment.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
> When they stop, we will likely stop. In fact, us stopping and them stopping will likely be brokered in a single deal. The devil is in the details. What does "us stopping and them stopping will likely be brokered in a single deal" mean? What about the scenario where Russia doesn't care about the West and continues to occupy Ukraine for months, maybe years, in the future? What happens if Ukraine capitulates? What are our answers for every scenario that could potentially happen? Right now I see a lot of "we apply pressure Until They Stop (TM)" but I don't see where "Until They Stop (TM)" ends unless we're planning to enter another Cold War where we sever communications with Russia forever.

istjohn 5y ago

Russia is holding the knife of thermonuclear war to the world's throat while it decimates cities full of men, women and children. Damn right we're going to do anything and everything in our power to cut them off from any source of aid or comfort. The alternative is direct military intervention, and no one wants to go down that road.

ratsmack 5y ago
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  Countries prefer NATO, because of a malicious actor/bully at the door.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
blagie 5y ago
76% of Americans want to go down that road, based on surveys around establishing a no fly zone over Ukraine. I do too. This is being played tactically rather than strategically. The knife of thermonuclear war will still be there in 5 years and in 50 years. If we cave to it, we lose in the long term: - Russia will do whatever it wants, until it crosses a line where we're drawn into WWIII; or - Other countries develop nuclear programs, if it gives a carte blanche to do anything they want Belarus is going nuclear, thanks to our (lack of) reaction. That's just a start of what's coming. Whether Putin launches nukes is up to Putin. It might be a bluff. It might not be. If it's not a bluff, we'll get to that point soon enough....
- awb 5y ago
  Kennedy was able to blockade Cuba without the conflict escalating into nuclear war, so there is precedent. I honestly don’t see the strategic value in launching a 1st strike for an altercation outside your own territory. If Putin wants territory or a legacy, launching nukes is a failure because: 1) no one is around to care, or those that survived will always hate you 2) you end up destroying the very territory you wanted But then again, you’re only wrong once.

NicoJuicy 5y ago

1 - reduce war capacity of Putin's Russia by limiting money inflow through eg. taxes and loans 2 - limit cyber security risks worldwide 3 - limit propaganda/disinformation 4 - limit troop capacity, since Russia wants to use internal state propaganda for mobilizing troops/reservist The main take is that there won't be a world war, if Russia can't fund a world war.

ivan90210 5y ago
1 - there will be no Ukraine by the time any of current measures start hurting anyone other than pedestrians. the measures that would work are not being considered seriously by anyone that matters 2 - state-funded actors will still have access to the internet 3 - state agencies will still have access to the internet 4 - pedestrians will still have access to the intranet 5 - it doesn't do anything about the nukes, and as for the threat of Russian tanks rolling their way into Germany, which has been on everyone's minds for the past 8 years, well, don't you feel silly now
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  The question was what's the goal. It's not just limiting current war capacity, but also limiting future war capacity and funds. From my POV, that seems to be working. You say it isn't, based on what? > the measures that would work are not being considered seriously And what are successfull measures according to you? Additionally, you are severely underestimating what Russia requires to occupy Ukraine vs. Invading. They need an additional willing 500 k. Troops for that. They don't have the numbers and even their FSB report mentions that. Ps. His children live in Europe, i doubt he'll drop bombs here.
  - ivan90210 5y ago
    >From my POV, that seems to be working. You say it isn't, based on what? China. they're doing fine without the internet >And what are successfull measures according to you? military intervention from the US >Ps. His children live in Europe, i doubt he'll drop bombs here. I wish I had your certainty. I've given up trying to predict the future. I hope you're right

trhway 5y ago

>I don't really understand what the endgame of the sanctions and various actions are here. For example Chechnya is in Russia only as long as Russia transfers huge money there. Many other regions are somewhat similar. >The idea that the populace will rise The populace doesn't matter. The Russian elite got used to a comfortable life of mini-Gods, and they might finally decide that they don't want to go down with Putin, and instead they may want to just give up Putin and let the populace work to pay the damage to Ukraine while they are back into their London mansions.

istjohn 5y ago
Unfortunately, everything I've read suggests it's quite unlikely anyone will be willing or able to overthrow Putin. What sanctions can do is diminish Russia's strength so it is less able to prosecute the invasion of Ukraine[1]. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/sanctions-vladimir-putin-kremlin-russian-oligarchy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/sancti...

Lascaille 5y ago

tragictrash 5y ago
Could you cite one of these things you've seen before? Genuinely curious.
- Lascaille 5y ago
  - tragictrash 5y ago
    That's not remotely the same as what you described in the first post.
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
I think it's irresponsible to opine like this with no proof.
- Lascaille 5y ago
  - tragictrash 5y ago
    I agree with Karrot. I also think it's irresponsible to keep digging the hole you're in
    - Lascaille 5y ago
      - tragictrash 5y ago

john_moscow 5y ago

The actual sanctions imposed by actual governments do make sense - they target specific companies and oligarchs, attempting to incentivize them to ditch Putin. The rest is just virtue signaling. People feel that they need to do something, so they do something. Not entirely logical. Not centrally coordinated. Mostly, acting upon emotions. Same mechanism as cancel culture, just against an external enemy now. What baffles me more is the Russia's endgame here. Unlike Crimea and Donbass, the rest of Ukraine has always been much more anti-authoritarian than Russia. So annexing it would yield millions of highly pissed off disloyal population, that has nothing to lose, and blends fairly well Russians in a crowd. Recipe for decades of pretty bloody tensions if you ask me.

analyte123 5y ago

It’s more than an emotional overreaction - it’s a massive own goal. The globally connected internet (in addition to the many of the other American companies stopping operations in Russia) is a major source of soft power for the US. This is literally doing Russia’s work for them - they have been trying to partition networks and services for years so that they can be independent of American tech companies and what they consider their control and propaganda - and now at a critical point for data flows and Western media operations, the US is going to help them build the wall. It feels unreal.

forum_ghost 5y ago
Indeed, this is amazing. First, destroy confidence in property rights by seizing central bank reserves (US debt). Why should anyone invest in US Govt debt after this, without a hefty political risk premium? Then, try to disconnect Russia from the internet. Why should anyone trust American tech after this? All this does in the end, is just hurting the regular people, who don't even have any input on the situation whatsoever. So, apparently Putin is a dictator, therefore we must punish people who didn't even elect him....? Is this sound logic? Meanwhile let's make sure with all sorts of carve outs that oligarchs still have their billions, but also make sure the Russian hoi polloi don't even have access to Western media. It seems to me, it's far simpler mentally to directly blame the vendors pulling out, rather than "Putin did something the West does all time, but it's only OK when they do it, not us. Then the West pressured their vendors into pulling out and reneging on contracts, which is only for our own good, therefore we must rise up and re-make Russia's political setup to Western preferences, so that we can use Apple Pay again". The conclusion of all this isn't going to be "We must rise up against Putin", but it will be simply "IKEA bad".

tragictrash 5y ago

It doesnt sound like they are trying to punish Russia, just encountering operational difficulties.

Barrin92 5y ago

what do you think the logic of the Cold War was? It was exactly this. Economic isolation and forcing them into a military arms race worked once. And Russia today is no match for the Soviet Union. We've had threats of nuclear annihilation and proxy wars literally for decades, the world didn't start in the 90s. Go watch some TV commercials from the 70s and 80s.(https://youtu.be/F0OPVi90-lg https://youtu.be/F0OPVi90-lg), this is how most of the latter half of the 20th century looked like.

analyte123 5y ago
That was when China had a GDP of $400B, as opposed to now ($15T).
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  So? It's not China that's marching on Kyiv.
  - newacc9 5y ago
    how can you say that when they are about to annex taiwan?
    - number6 5y ago
      Give them russia instead
- Barrin92 5y ago
  and we're talking about a confrontation with Russia right now, not with China. If China wants to pay the bill for Russia's adventures they're free to do so, but from their ambivalent reaction it's pretty obvious that they're not to keen on it either. The West is 50% of the world's economy, Russia 2%. China knows this. There's no reason to instinctively flinch every time someone in the Kremlin or in Beijing throws a tantrum. Leadership in China and Russia responds to strength and making countries pay a price for moving borders violently is going to make the world more stable. The US and Europe aren't going to get nuked, where do you think the children of all those leaders live right now? You think they're gonna glass their own kids in those fancy apartments in Rotterdam, London or New York? It's just bluster.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

What alternatives, other than sanctions, do you think would be better?

throwaway22032 5y ago
It's the endgame I'm concerned with, the inevitable peace treaty, whether that's in a week or a century. Not the actions being taken at present. I suppose really all of this stuff takes place behind closed doors anyway and what we're seeing on the news is total bollocks.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  Russia and Japan still do not have a peace treaty from WW2. This can go on for a very long time.
  - Fatnino 5y ago
    My impression is that Russia was disappointed that the allies didn't invade Japan so they could grab that up too.
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      See also Manchuria: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria
yucky 5y ago
Officially reversing the post-coup additions to the Ukrainian Constitution that make direct overtures to joining NATO? Russia has made this clear since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They invaded Ukraine after the Ukrainian coup in 2014. In theory, this made it impossible for Ukraine to join NATO. And yet here they are pushing (or being pushed by the US) to join NATO, despite knowing this will 100% begin WWIII. So yes, the answer is what it always was. Ukraine can't join NATO, if they want peace with Russia. This is not a mystery.

hereforphone 5y ago

It's virtue signaling. Companies are trying to outdo one another in showing support. This is why we get insane things like Namecheap threatening to cancel domains belonging to anyone registering from Russia.

colinmhayes 5y ago
Pretty sure the namecheap thing was because they have 1000 Ukrainian employees who were threatening to quit in mass if Russia wasn't completely cut off.

logicalmonster 5y ago

The world has been taken hostage by the business model of the media: which is fear and outrage porn. Whatever narrative tugs at the heartstrings the most and gets the most clicks and shares becomes the only permitted reality that the mainstream public and government functions off of. The public is wholly ignorant of that region’s history and energy politics and everything involved yet yet they think they’re experts. You have people who are literally crying about this conflict and trying to get involved solely because the media told them that they had to care: most of these people never even noticed Russian invasions of Georgia and Ukraine before because they were never told to care.

forum_ghost 5y ago
It's incredible how rapid and sticky the narrative shift has been. Literally from 24/7 covid to 24/7 ukraine in a matter of days. Are there ways to objectively measure narrative penetration, and how far back did the previous approved narrative slid on some objective measures: "eyeballs time spent" or something?
- awb 5y ago
  > Literally from 24/7 covid to 24/7 ukraine in a matter of days Almost like these are really rare, important and newsworthy events.
kcb 5y ago
The first war of this scale in Europe since WW2...I wonder why it's on the news. I really despise this line of thinking. Are you saying you can't care about objectively innocent peoples homes, cities, lives being destroyed unless you have in depth knowledge of the regions history and energy politics? And honestly your assumption that most of these people don't remember Georgia or 2014 is ridiculous.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  Caring about average people caught in the crossfire through no actions of their own is perfectly natural and great. If you're able to do something genuinely useful like give some housing to a refugee family who fled, hey good for you. It's the rush to only parrot the list of acceptable ideas that the media tells you that people are allowed to think, emotionally overreact and go out of your way to try and not try and understand the conflict, trying to shut Russia out of the world that's going to really escalate this. It's important to understand this region better: Russia has been talking about NATO/EU encroaching on them for about 20 years. There's bad stuff going on all around the region and most people are ignorant about everything other than the current news cycle. And yes, I stand firm on people not having a clue about recent history . Most people don't remember that they were in a state of mass panic about Omicron and Covid less than a month ago and have seamlessly transitioned to caring about the latest bad thing (TM) that they're told to consume.

throw_m239339 5y ago

> I don't really understand what the endgame of the sanctions and various actions are here. Simple, get Russia to stop killing Ukrainians and invading their country.

brentm 5y ago

I don't have a good read on the average Russian's opinion of Putin but I think a major risk here is these sanctions & pull outs having the opposite effect. If the main point of the effort is to drive a wedge between Putin and the people he really may be able to use this as a way to make it more of an "us" against "them" thing. Which then keeps him in power and he remains a risk for the world. Either way though it will likely work to depress their economy and make it more difficult for them to wage war on a larger scale that just takes a while to play out. Everyone keeps talking WW3 but the more I think about it the less worried I become. I think the only real risk to that is if Putin literally is an irrational mad man. As in he is hell bent on destroying the west even if the price is his own country and maybe the world. This is possible but not that likely. When you follow that logic he also isn't likely to go after a NATO country and expand the war because he can't win and rational people want to win. It's entirely possible that the yes men he has built into the Kremlin told him this whole thing was going to be a cake walk because they were afraid to tell him otherwise and had no idea. He may want this to end as much as the next guy but now needs to save face and show something for the massive problems that he created.

robbedpeter 5y ago

MAD would mean no way out. I think the theory goes like this: Putin going down is a way out, and there are younger, hungrier deadly men in the military, and really scary oligarchs and gangsters with the resources to give Putin a good fight. He can't unilaterally initiate nuclear conflict, because Russia put competent people and rules in place to avoid self-destruct failure modes. The idea is that the world makes it clear that the choices are massive conflict, up to and including nuclear, or taking Putin down. This puts Putin in the place between Russian rock and the nato hard place, giving him the option of backing down. If Putin just doesn't give a fuck anymore, if he is ill or just feeling like it's time to go out in a blaze of glory, we'll see what other actions the geniuses in power decide on.

threatofrain 5y ago

Economic isolation is the harshest move you can do short of direct military conflict. It may be that the right answer to military is military, but I'm okay with sanctions as a buffer before troops on the ground. As for WW3, what kind of WW3 do you imagine? What kind of multi-system war would that be? One where China and Saudi Arabia is standing with Russia? If Russia flies nukes then they will lose what little support they have in the world.

rosndo 5y ago

Why are you people so obsessed with regime change? Russia has to be severely penalized so that they or others don’t repeat the same actions in the future.