4 ms·

Economic integration with autocracy has not proven consistently reliable at preventing military conflict. So what's left?

im3w1l 5y ago
Not to be a downer, but there may simply not be a solution.
- rectang 5y ago
  Well, clearly there are some promising avenues. For example, developing alternatives to fossil fuels would weaken adventurous petro-dictatorships. It's not a short term proposition, but it's something that ought to be taken into account when e.g. considering how governments allocate subsidies or weigh long-term energy strategies (as Germany is doing now). Any initiative that strengthens the global market for oil and gas has a side effect of destabilizing the rules-based world order.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    Unfortunately, adventurous dictators also control much of the worlds currently accessible supply of rare-ish minerals and elements that go into batteries and powerful magnets. It's not a bad idea to do it regardless, but you're just trading bad for bad if your primary reason for doing so is to avoid naughty governments.
    - rectang 5y ago
      Oil and rare minerals are separate revenue streams. Let's say that a given dictator's petro-adventurism is 50% funded by oil and 20% funded by rare minerals. If you can degrade their ability to wage war by reducing one or the other, why is that "bad"? I'm curious — do you prefer e.g. the Chinese governance model over the democratic model? I'm getting the feeling you believe that autocracy is inevitable and unstoppable, and I wonder if you believe that that fate is also desirable.
      - zdragnar 5y ago
        Not at all! I am merely not of the opinion that economic sanctions are reliable or effective deterrents to authoritarianism. The cases where they have been demonstrably effective are comparatively few, and the geopolitical circumstances are substantially different in those than now with Russia invading Ukraine. Pretending that massively investing in solar, wind and EVs will absolve us of dependency on autocratic regimes is just intellectually dishonest- we are merely trading one for another. For the record, I do support temporarily ceasing the purchase of oil from Russia. Buying more oil from Venezuela, Iran or Saudi Arabia is not a long term answer, or rare earth metals from China (who is notably not participating in sanctions). Though Russia has yet to ramp up production, they will also become a key player in a post-fossil-fuel world as they are thought to have a full quarter of the accessible supply.
zdragnar 5y ago
The sanctions weren't intended to prevent military conflict- the threat of sanctions was. The threat failed. Now the question should be, will following through on the threat mitigate the harm now or in the future? Against Russia, my guess is no. They also haven't been successful against Iran or any number of other counties. It might be said that the effectiveness of sanctions is entirely reliant upon being able to keep a weak nation weak, rather than preventing a strong nation from preying upon weaker neighbors.
dehrmann 5y ago
Depending on how Russia's economy looks in 3-6 months, it might still serve as a deterrent.

im3w1l 5y ago

Not to be a downer, but there may simply not be a solution.

rectang 5y ago
Well, clearly there are some promising avenues. For example, developing alternatives to fossil fuels would weaken adventurous petro-dictatorships. It's not a short term proposition, but it's something that ought to be taken into account when e.g. considering how governments allocate subsidies or weigh long-term energy strategies (as Germany is doing now). Any initiative that strengthens the global market for oil and gas has a side effect of destabilizing the rules-based world order.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  Unfortunately, adventurous dictators also control much of the worlds currently accessible supply of rare-ish minerals and elements that go into batteries and powerful magnets. It's not a bad idea to do it regardless, but you're just trading bad for bad if your primary reason for doing so is to avoid naughty governments.
  - rectang 5y ago
    Oil and rare minerals are separate revenue streams. Let's say that a given dictator's petro-adventurism is 50% funded by oil and 20% funded by rare minerals. If you can degrade their ability to wage war by reducing one or the other, why is that "bad"? I'm curious — do you prefer e.g. the Chinese governance model over the democratic model? I'm getting the feeling you believe that autocracy is inevitable and unstoppable, and I wonder if you believe that that fate is also desirable.
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      Not at all! I am merely not of the opinion that economic sanctions are reliable or effective deterrents to authoritarianism. The cases where they have been demonstrably effective are comparatively few, and the geopolitical circumstances are substantially different in those than now with Russia invading Ukraine. Pretending that massively investing in solar, wind and EVs will absolve us of dependency on autocratic regimes is just intellectually dishonest- we are merely trading one for another. For the record, I do support temporarily ceasing the purchase of oil from Russia. Buying more oil from Venezuela, Iran or Saudi Arabia is not a long term answer, or rare earth metals from China (who is notably not participating in sanctions). Though Russia has yet to ramp up production, they will also become a key player in a post-fossil-fuel world as they are thought to have a full quarter of the accessible supply.

zdragnar 5y ago

The sanctions weren't intended to prevent military conflict- the threat of sanctions was. The threat failed. Now the question should be, will following through on the threat mitigate the harm now or in the future? Against Russia, my guess is no. They also haven't been successful against Iran or any number of other counties. It might be said that the effectiveness of sanctions is entirely reliant upon being able to keep a weak nation weak, rather than preventing a strong nation from preying upon weaker neighbors.

dehrmann 5y ago

Depending on how Russia's economy looks in 3-6 months, it might still serve as a deterrent.