4 ms·

> 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 jus

> 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.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > The devil is in the details. What does "us stopping and them stopping will likely be brokered in a single deal" mean? It means a single agreement would outline both conditions. Not sure what isn't clear there. > What about the scenario where Russia doesn't care about the West and continues to occupy Ukraine for months, maybe years, in the future? I believe I commented on that exact scenario: "sanctions would continue for an indeterminant (but likely not indefinite) time." > 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. Seeing as how we didn't sever communications with the USSR forever in the first Cold War, I doubt that'd be a thing we did in the second. Like with everything else, we'd keep punishing them until we stop feeling the need. Right now there is a need: maybe it pulls them off of Ukraine. If that winds up not happening, maybe we keep them going for a while as punishment. Its a pretty simple give and take.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    > "sanctions would continue for an indeterminant (but likely not indefinite) time." Right, so here "indeterminant" is the "devil in the details". Is this the matter of days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? Sanctions are always a calculated risk. Their goal tends to be to destabilize regimes by making it difficult for members of the regime to move money or otherwise live their lives, placing hopefully direct pressure on the regime itself. But if the regime feels comfortable staying the course despite the sanctions, then what are we achieving here? I'm not against sanctions and I think sanctions are a necessity for modern diplomacy; but they need to have a clearly understood end goal in mind. Right now there seems to be a lot of moralizing and very little actual game theory in an escalating conflict with a nuclear power. Is the end game here to morally shame Russia or is it to end this conflict? > Seeing as how we didn't sever communications with the USSR forever in the first Cold War Communications between citizens of the West and the USSR was effectively severed for the duration of the Cold War. That's the question. Is the end game of these sanctions to start another Cold War or not?
    - 5y ago
throwaway22032 5y ago
I think I see what you're getting at - there is some point at which the cumulative damage of loss of trade is worse for Russia than the benefits to be gained in Ukraine. My point is that I'm not sure this is even in the hands of governments any more. A state can withdraw jets, it can't deal with hundreds of companies pulling out entirely, a collapsed stock market, etc. Basically you can't actually unwind the sanctions, just like you can't unbomb a Ukrainian village. If it gets bad enough then there's surely a point of no return somewhere.
- netsharc 5y ago
  Yeah, painting Putin to a losing corner will just mean possible more destruction including nukes, he must have a face-saving out, because kicking him and expecting him to retreat with his tail between his legs before he's exhausted all options is unrealistic. IMO that's why NATO doesn't want to get involved (yet), the USA can bomb Putin's forces out of Ukraine, but it'd be too embarrassing for Putin to accept without a fight, and for that fight he still has... nukes.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > Basically you can't actually unwind the sanctions, just like you can't unbomb a Ukrainian village. If it gets bad enough then there's surely a point of no return somewhere. The longer things go on, the higher the perceived risk will be for companies returning, but there will always be an incentive for companies to return to take advantage of arbitration opportunities, considering Russia's depressed state. Whether they back down sooner, later, or never, is just risk companies need to price in when doing business there. Changes in the risk will change the benefits to the Russian people, and the profiles of the companies that show up in their markets, but hell, even Indonesia gets trade. There is never a point of no return, not so long as Russia has a resource to trade.

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.

BobbyJo 5y ago
> The devil is in the details. What does "us stopping and them stopping will likely be brokered in a single deal" mean? It means a single agreement would outline both conditions. Not sure what isn't clear there. > What about the scenario where Russia doesn't care about the West and continues to occupy Ukraine for months, maybe years, in the future? I believe I commented on that exact scenario: "sanctions would continue for an indeterminant (but likely not indefinite) time." > 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. Seeing as how we didn't sever communications with the USSR forever in the first Cold War, I doubt that'd be a thing we did in the second. Like with everything else, we'd keep punishing them until we stop feeling the need. Right now there is a need: maybe it pulls them off of Ukraine. If that winds up not happening, maybe we keep them going for a while as punishment. Its a pretty simple give and take.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  > "sanctions would continue for an indeterminant (but likely not indefinite) time." Right, so here "indeterminant" is the "devil in the details". Is this the matter of days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? Sanctions are always a calculated risk. Their goal tends to be to destabilize regimes by making it difficult for members of the regime to move money or otherwise live their lives, placing hopefully direct pressure on the regime itself. But if the regime feels comfortable staying the course despite the sanctions, then what are we achieving here? I'm not against sanctions and I think sanctions are a necessity for modern diplomacy; but they need to have a clearly understood end goal in mind. Right now there seems to be a lot of moralizing and very little actual game theory in an escalating conflict with a nuclear power. Is the end game here to morally shame Russia or is it to end this conflict? > Seeing as how we didn't sever communications with the USSR forever in the first Cold War Communications between citizens of the West and the USSR was effectively severed for the duration of the Cold War. That's the question. Is the end game of these sanctions to start another Cold War or not?
  - 5y ago

throwaway22032 5y ago

I think I see what you're getting at - there is some point at which the cumulative damage of loss of trade is worse for Russia than the benefits to be gained in Ukraine. My point is that I'm not sure this is even in the hands of governments any more. A state can withdraw jets, it can't deal with hundreds of companies pulling out entirely, a collapsed stock market, etc. Basically you can't actually unwind the sanctions, just like you can't unbomb a Ukrainian village. If it gets bad enough then there's surely a point of no return somewhere.

netsharc 5y ago
Yeah, painting Putin to a losing corner will just mean possible more destruction including nukes, he must have a face-saving out, because kicking him and expecting him to retreat with his tail between his legs before he's exhausted all options is unrealistic. IMO that's why NATO doesn't want to get involved (yet), the USA can bomb Putin's forces out of Ukraine, but it'd be too embarrassing for Putin to accept without a fight, and for that fight he still has... nukes.
BobbyJo 5y ago
> Basically you can't actually unwind the sanctions, just like you can't unbomb a Ukrainian village. If it gets bad enough then there's surely a point of no return somewhere. The longer things go on, the higher the perceived risk will be for companies returning, but there will always be an incentive for companies to return to take advantage of arbitration opportunities, considering Russia's depressed state. Whether they back down sooner, later, or never, is just risk companies need to price in when doing business there. Changes in the risk will change the benefits to the Russian people, and the profiles of the companies that show up in their markets, but hell, even Indonesia gets trade. There is never a point of no return, not so long as Russia has a resource to trade.