3 ms·

Targeting Russian economy cripples their ability to carry on the war but there are many ways they can get in debt to carry on with that if Putin wants. So its e

Targeting Russian economy cripples their ability to carry on the war but there are many ways they can get in debt to carry on with that if Putin wants. So its easy to make an argument that that is not even close to stop the war. The "Dampen popular support aspect": is debatable wether that is true or not, even if there are people against the war in Russia. The propaganda is very strong and the friction to break the status quo is very high. There is no guarantee that the sanctions can influence Russian decisions towards peacemaking. On the other hand, its easy to come to the conclusion that people in Russia will suffer a lot. That is sad because they dont deserve it. Also the fact that they are trapped in Russia is terrible. Very few ways of getting out of there due to all the countries closing their airspace. IMO it would have been better to open the borders for both Ukrainian and Russian refugees (prioritising Ukrainians of course) and stop making business in the future with Russia, but without stopping the current functioning of the economy. This allows people to think about their future and move out of Russia without a lot of friction. In the long term, more damages for Putin's government.

axiosgunnar 5y ago
I don't even try to argue with people like you anymore. One dictator is starting a literal war of aggression and you will still have armchair philosophers argue like this. I want my country and its allies to impose maximum damage on Russia, as a matter of principle. I frankly do not care about hypothetical collateral damage anymore, as right this minute we have artillery glassing Mariupol and Kiev, any arguing is moot.
- juanani 5y ago
- nvegater 5y ago
  There are no hypotheticals. It is clear and understood that the civil Russian population will suffer the sanctions the most. I don't understand what you mean by calling that hypothetical collateral damage. Sanctions making Putin retreat seems more hypothetical to me. Targeting civilians on purpose to try to change a dictators mind is naive and it underestimates the power of a dictatorship inside its own country. Of course seizing foreign assets of Russian oligarchs has to be done, quitting projects with Russian companies as well and many other things, just don't try to affect the middle-low Russian class to create difficulties, it will only mess with the people and it wont damage Putin's regime. I also want maximum damage on Russia. Offer Middle-low class Russians something WAY better than what they cant get in their country, and make it easy for them to go outside of Russia to get it. IMO that causes more damage than the sanctions (short and long term) but we will never know.
  - BizarroLand 5y ago
    You can't put hunger on credit. If economic sanctions cause the people to start missing meals they will turn on Putin. This is another facet of war, something that would allow Nato to kill Putin without getting their hands dirty. He knows it as well, which is why he's saber rattling his nukes.
    - nvegater 5y ago
      People in Russia will not starve, they're just getting poorer without reaching hunger (can cite some sources if you want). Of course letting them starve (for too long) is the end for Putin, so of course he won't let that happen and it won't happen with the current measures.

axiosgunnar 5y ago

I don't even try to argue with people like you anymore. One dictator is starting a literal war of aggression and you will still have armchair philosophers argue like this. I want my country and its allies to impose maximum damage on Russia, as a matter of principle. I frankly do not care about hypothetical collateral damage anymore, as right this minute we have artillery glassing Mariupol and Kiev, any arguing is moot.

juanani 5y ago
nvegater 5y ago
There are no hypotheticals. It is clear and understood that the civil Russian population will suffer the sanctions the most. I don't understand what you mean by calling that hypothetical collateral damage. Sanctions making Putin retreat seems more hypothetical to me. Targeting civilians on purpose to try to change a dictators mind is naive and it underestimates the power of a dictatorship inside its own country. Of course seizing foreign assets of Russian oligarchs has to be done, quitting projects with Russian companies as well and many other things, just don't try to affect the middle-low Russian class to create difficulties, it will only mess with the people and it wont damage Putin's regime. I also want maximum damage on Russia. Offer Middle-low class Russians something WAY better than what they cant get in their country, and make it easy for them to go outside of Russia to get it. IMO that causes more damage than the sanctions (short and long term) but we will never know.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  You can't put hunger on credit. If economic sanctions cause the people to start missing meals they will turn on Putin. This is another facet of war, something that would allow Nato to kill Putin without getting their hands dirty. He knows it as well, which is why he's saber rattling his nukes.
  - nvegater 5y ago
    People in Russia will not starve, they're just getting poorer without reaching hunger (can cite some sources if you want). Of course letting them starve (for too long) is the end for Putin, so of course he won't let that happen and it won't happen with the current measures.