3 ms·

From the intro to this paper: "I do not address whether sanctions are an effective substitute for war." But isn't substituting for war the whole purpose of sanc

by KVFinn 5y ago

From the intro to this paper: "I do not address whether sanctions are an effective substitute for war." But isn't substituting for war the whole purpose of sanctions? Sanctions are a nonmilitary response to a military action. What is the alternative way for the world to respond to the invasion of Ukraine? The first goal of sanctions is to diminish the capability of the Russian economy to sustain a military invasion. The second goal is to be a chip at the negotiation table. Releasing sanctions can traded for a withdrawal, creating an incentive to end the invasion.

derbOac 5y ago
I think one of the reasons this situation is different, at least in modern experience, is because the sanctions are such a clear case of having hands tied. It's fairly obvious that if Russia were nonnuclear, this would have largely been over weeks ago, with the Russian military obliterated. Russia had its military piled up in one spot, has been engaging in unacceptable aggression, to the point of there being legitimate widespread war crimes, and there's a clear legitimate security threat to Europe. In any other case, NATO would have responded harshly and proactively and obliterated the Russian military almost completely. But they feel they can't due to nuclear risk, rightly or wrongly. So there's this huge dissonance, of something clearly morally disgusting, and a security threat, and something they're more than capable of addressing, but can't due to nuclear threat. This is really different from most sanctions in recent history, where the sanctions have been over something more distal, further away, maybe less morally repugnant, and/or not such a clear security risk to the NATO region, and/or where military action would be less justified or decisive. Kasparov has raised some important points in all of this, which is if the concern is really MAD, why would any military action by Russia against any other country, including a NATO country, be responded to differently by NATO? I think this, in turn, raises another function of sanctions which maybe hasn't been discussed yet, which is deterrence. Maybe the sanctions aren't enough to get Russia out of Ukraine, maybe they're not enough to remove Putin from power, but maybe they'd be enough to keep him from thinking about invading Finland or Estonia while his military is slowly being ground to dust in Ukraine, the spectre of conflict with Japan has been reignited, etc etc etc. For what it's worth, the West (and world) needs to make this more than about Russia. There has to be a way to respond to human rights and fundamental security violations without being hamstrung by the threat of loss of humankind.

by KVFinn 5y ago

derbOac 5y ago

I think one of the reasons this situation is different, at least in modern experience, is because the sanctions are such a clear case of having hands tied. It's fairly obvious that if Russia were nonnuclear, this would have largely been over weeks ago, with the Russian military obliterated. Russia had its military piled up in one spot, has been engaging in unacceptable aggression, to the point of there being legitimate widespread war crimes, and there's a clear legitimate security threat to Europe. In any other case, NATO would have responded harshly and proactively and obliterated the Russian military almost completely. But they feel they can't due to nuclear risk, rightly or wrongly. So there's this huge dissonance, of something clearly morally disgusting, and a security threat, and something they're more than capable of addressing, but can't due to nuclear threat. This is really different from most sanctions in recent history, where the sanctions have been over something more distal, further away, maybe less morally repugnant, and/or not such a clear security risk to the NATO region, and/or where military action would be less justified or decisive. Kasparov has raised some important points in all of this, which is if the concern is really MAD, why would any military action by Russia against any other country, including a NATO country, be responded to differently by NATO? I think this, in turn, raises another function of sanctions which maybe hasn't been discussed yet, which is deterrence. Maybe the sanctions aren't enough to get Russia out of Ukraine, maybe they're not enough to remove Putin from power, but maybe they'd be enough to keep him from thinking about invading Finland or Estonia while his military is slowly being ground to dust in Ukraine, the spectre of conflict with Japan has been reignited, etc etc etc. For what it's worth, the West (and world) needs to make this more than about Russia. There has to be a way to respond to human rights and fundamental security violations without being hamstrung by the threat of loss of humankind.