3 ms·

Relying on sanctions to stop Russia could go ‘terribly wrong’

3 points by melling 5y ago

tima101 5y ago
Only thing that will change Putin's mind is his defeat on the battlefield, period. Definitely, not sanctions. He will only stop if stopped by force. Sanctions only affect a very small fraction of Russia's population, so called quasi-middle class. Putin and rich oligarchs have more than enough, the poor majority is not affected. Why not help Ukraine with jets and anti-air and solve Putin's problem now? It's obvious that corporate US thinks it is less profitable for them to escalate. It's more profitable to let Putin destroy an entire democratic nation. The short-term thinking and greed will backfire eventually. What does the West think Putin, disconnected from reality, power-drunk primate with a grenade in his hand, will do after Ukraine? Stay peaceful?
- tima101 5y ago
  Here is one example of short-term thinking. In 2014 Putin annexed Crimea, there was no reaction from the West. Nil, not even one serious sanction. Corporate interest decided to kick the can down the road. The year is 2022, the West decides to kick the can down the road again. Corporations blame inflation on Putin meanwhile extracting record-high profits. Win-win, in the short term. There is no cure for human nature, in this case - greed.
- tima101 5y ago
  And nuclear war argument is fear mongering by corporate media. Breaking Putin's army in Ukraine prevents further escalation. Because Putin has no army to invade other countries and makes it easier for Russian people to replace him with someone more sane.
ComradePhil 5y ago
The article talks about the short-term risks but I'm more concerned about the medium to long term. Cutting out the Russian people because of incompetence of the western governments [1] to handle this situation will only make the situation worse. As of now, the Russian population is against the war. Give it a few months of everyone cutting them out of the economy... and they can't afford anything and have to rely on the government to feed them... their only option is to fight for their country. How does Europe plan to handle 3 million Russian soldiers with nothing to lose? And those are soldiers as of now. How about the 50 million adult men who will then follow? Or lets say that doesn't happen and Europe has 100 million Russian refugees instead... or if the oligarchs decide to go nuclear. None of the possibilies will end well for anyone... except may be a select few in the U.S. [1] If the westerners wanted Ukraine in Nato, they should have sent the army and all the weapons overnight and signed them in the following morning. You don't taunt them for 14 years and don't expect them to react. It's as if they plan to get them to react to find an excuse to go to war because it is insanely profitable for the few who control puppets like Biden. And these sanctions and blockades seem like they are designed for that outcome.
- trasz 5y ago
  Russians can’t fight against proper army; they hadn’t tried since 1945. Their only skill is terrorizing civilians. That’s why we are seeing such a pathetic failure in Ukraine. See also this thread: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1502673952572854278?s=21 https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1502673952572854278?s...
NicoJuicy 5y ago
Who says we are relying solely on sanctions? The sanctions are meant to limit Russia's budget of going to war. If Russia would escalate, going against an autocracy without much money should be a lot easier. Draining their money should also restrict their possiblities ( eg. duration, means, investments, ...). Additionally, Russia's CSTO has also been untested in concern of the members who assist each other. The question is what will happen if the main funder of the 'project' goes broke.
rurban 5y ago
Thankfully we already know the position of the western fascists, like the US military or Niall Ferguson. And thankfully the position of everybody else is different, because they know their enemy a bit better.

3 points by melling 5y ago

Only thing that will change Putin's mind is his defeat on the battlefield, period. Definitely, not sanctions. He will only stop if stopped by force. Sanctions only affect a very small fraction of Russia's population, so called quasi-middle class. Putin and rich oligarchs have more than enough, the poor majority is not affected. Why not help Ukraine with jets and anti-air and solve Putin's problem now? It's obvious that corporate US thinks it is less profitable for them to escalate. It's more profitable to let Putin destroy an entire democratic nation. The short-term thinking and greed will backfire eventually. What does the West think Putin, disconnected from reality, power-drunk primate with a grenade in his hand, will do after Ukraine? Stay peaceful?

tima101 5y ago
Here is one example of short-term thinking. In 2014 Putin annexed Crimea, there was no reaction from the West. Nil, not even one serious sanction. Corporate interest decided to kick the can down the road. The year is 2022, the West decides to kick the can down the road again. Corporations blame inflation on Putin meanwhile extracting record-high profits. Win-win, in the short term. There is no cure for human nature, in this case - greed.
tima101 5y ago
And nuclear war argument is fear mongering by corporate media. Breaking Putin's army in Ukraine prevents further escalation. Because Putin has no army to invade other countries and makes it easier for Russian people to replace him with someone more sane.

ComradePhil 5y ago

The article talks about the short-term risks but I'm more concerned about the medium to long term. Cutting out the Russian people because of incompetence of the western governments [1] to handle this situation will only make the situation worse. As of now, the Russian population is against the war. Give it a few months of everyone cutting them out of the economy... and they can't afford anything and have to rely on the government to feed them... their only option is to fight for their country. How does Europe plan to handle 3 million Russian soldiers with nothing to lose? And those are soldiers as of now. How about the 50 million adult men who will then follow? Or lets say that doesn't happen and Europe has 100 million Russian refugees instead... or if the oligarchs decide to go nuclear. None of the possibilies will end well for anyone... except may be a select few in the U.S. [1] If the westerners wanted Ukraine in Nato, they should have sent the army and all the weapons overnight and signed them in the following morning. You don't taunt them for 14 years and don't expect them to react. It's as if they plan to get them to react to find an excuse to go to war because it is insanely profitable for the few who control puppets like Biden. And these sanctions and blockades seem like they are designed for that outcome.

trasz 5y ago
Russians can’t fight against proper army; they hadn’t tried since 1945. Their only skill is terrorizing civilians. That’s why we are seeing such a pathetic failure in Ukraine. See also this thread: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1502673952572854278?s=21 https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1502673952572854278?s...

NicoJuicy 5y ago

Who says we are relying solely on sanctions? The sanctions are meant to limit Russia's budget of going to war. If Russia would escalate, going against an autocracy without much money should be a lot easier. Draining their money should also restrict their possiblities ( eg. duration, means, investments, ...). Additionally, Russia's CSTO has also been untested in concern of the members who assist each other. The question is what will happen if the main funder of the 'project' goes broke.

rurban 5y ago

Thankfully we already know the position of the western fascists, like the US military or Niall Ferguson. And thankfully the position of everybody else is different, because they know their enemy a bit better.