4 ms·

Sanctioning Russia, preventing trade and precipitating the ensuing shortages is another item which political leaders could take responsibility for. Interesting

Sanctioning Russia, preventing trade and precipitating the ensuing shortages is another item which political leaders could take responsibility for. Interesting how this has been spun.

aeternum 5y ago
It's quite interesting that we do not consider the collateral damage of sanctions to be evil like we do with airstrikes. The US sanctions on North Korea for example have caused incomprehensible amounts of starvation, a fate worse than being killed in an airstrike, yet people don't seem to care.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  Too true. In this case the citizens who consume the pro-sanctions narrative are expected to toe the line while they pay higher prices. "See what Mr. Putin made me do to you, on your behalf!" seems a greater leap than saying, "See what Saddam made me do to those Iraqis on your behalf!"
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Oh no! Anyways. Yeah if this stops the war I'm all in.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Nobody owes another country trade. If a country wants to act out, then it cannot be surprised that countries will stop doing business with them. This is the fault of the Russian administration, not the rest of the world for wanting to avoid trading with a warmonger.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    The question isn't whether Mr. Putin, his administration or the Russian state is 'owed' trade. It is whether individuals in the west should be able to freely purchase petroleum products. The prohibitions on trade are the fault of those enacting the prohibitions on trade. If you're going to take the realpolitik stance of demanding the necessity of the sanctions as a result of the Russian administration's actions, then where does this train of consequences end? Did the war in Ukraine happen in a vacuum? Were there no precipitating events, no opportunities for deescalation? If the invasion was solely the fault of the Russian administration, then it should follow that the sanctions are solely the fault of those who enacted them.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      > The prohibitions on trade are the fault of those enacting the prohibitions on trade. International trade isn't a right, it's a privilege. Agreements negotiated between states at the state level. You have a right to trade at home, you don't have a right to trade abroad whether that's at the discretion of the state that represents your interests, or the state that represents the interests of your trading partner. For instance, the Chinese can't sell fentanyl into the US market. Why not? Because trade isn't a right, it's a privilege. > If the invasion was solely the fault of the Russian administration, then it should follow that the sanctions are solely the fault of those who enacted them. Other way. If the fault of the invasion was solely on Russia then the consequences of those actions are also on Russia.
      - aww_dang 5y ago
        >For instance, the Chinese can't sell fentanyl into the US market. Why not? Because trade isn't a right, it's a privilege. Take any example of a state abusing or denying someone their rights. Next observe that those were not rights, those were privileges. This chain of logic works well if you believe that rights originate from the state. >“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
      - aeternum 5y ago
        Maybe trade should be a right, it was definitely seen that way (by the West) at one point in history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars How fair is it to force starvation upon a populace in retribution for the actions of an unelected leader? As a thought experiment, suppose that Russia did not have nukes nor means to retaliate, would you be equally okay with the US bombing Russian cities and killing civilians in numbers equal to those that will starve due to our sanctions? What if instead of sanctions or bombing we developed some kind of chemical weapon that increased the population's metabolism such that equal numbers starve. Would that not be seen as completely despicable? Yet the outcome is the same.
        yywwbbn 5y ago
  - webXL 5y ago
    > Nobody owes another country trade. ...not the rest of the world for wanting to avoid trading with a warmonger. You're conflating decent people with their indecent governments. There are plenty of decent people who would gladly trade with decent people of countries we sanction, but we not only punish the entire country, we punish ourselves in the form of higher prices. Those prices ripple through the economy and we all get less. Virtually everyone loses here, but we're supposed to take solace that the "other side" suffers more. That is pure 1984-level insanity.
    - account42 5y ago
      Those decent people are responsible for their government. They pay taxes to that government. They profit from their governments actions and they are hurt by them. If they don't like being sanction they can rise up and get their government to stop doing things that gets them sanctioned or they can separate themselves from that government by fleeing somewhere else. This may not be fair for the individual - but no less so than it is for the individuals in other countries that their government affects - but collectively, they are their country.

Sanctioning Russia, preventing trade and precipitating the ensuing shortages is another item which political leaders could take responsibility for. Interesting how this has been spun.

aeternum 5y ago

It's quite interesting that we do not consider the collateral damage of sanctions to be evil like we do with airstrikes. The US sanctions on North Korea for example have caused incomprehensible amounts of starvation, a fate worse than being killed in an airstrike, yet people don't seem to care.

aww_dang 5y ago
Too true. In this case the citizens who consume the pro-sanctions narrative are expected to toe the line while they pay higher prices. "See what Mr. Putin made me do to you, on your behalf!" seems a greater leap than saying, "See what Saddam made me do to those Iraqis on your behalf!"
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Oh no! Anyways. Yeah if this stops the war I'm all in.
arcticbull 5y ago
Nobody owes another country trade. If a country wants to act out, then it cannot be surprised that countries will stop doing business with them. This is the fault of the Russian administration, not the rest of the world for wanting to avoid trading with a warmonger.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  The question isn't whether Mr. Putin, his administration or the Russian state is 'owed' trade. It is whether individuals in the west should be able to freely purchase petroleum products. The prohibitions on trade are the fault of those enacting the prohibitions on trade. If you're going to take the realpolitik stance of demanding the necessity of the sanctions as a result of the Russian administration's actions, then where does this train of consequences end? Did the war in Ukraine happen in a vacuum? Were there no precipitating events, no opportunities for deescalation? If the invasion was solely the fault of the Russian administration, then it should follow that the sanctions are solely the fault of those who enacted them.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > The prohibitions on trade are the fault of those enacting the prohibitions on trade. International trade isn't a right, it's a privilege. Agreements negotiated between states at the state level. You have a right to trade at home, you don't have a right to trade abroad whether that's at the discretion of the state that represents your interests, or the state that represents the interests of your trading partner. For instance, the Chinese can't sell fentanyl into the US market. Why not? Because trade isn't a right, it's a privilege. > If the invasion was solely the fault of the Russian administration, then it should follow that the sanctions are solely the fault of those who enacted them. Other way. If the fault of the invasion was solely on Russia then the consequences of those actions are also on Russia.
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      >For instance, the Chinese can't sell fentanyl into the US market. Why not? Because trade isn't a right, it's a privilege. Take any example of a state abusing or denying someone their rights. Next observe that those were not rights, those were privileges. This chain of logic works well if you believe that rights originate from the state. >“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
    - aeternum 5y ago
      Maybe trade should be a right, it was definitely seen that way (by the West) at one point in history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars How fair is it to force starvation upon a populace in retribution for the actions of an unelected leader? As a thought experiment, suppose that Russia did not have nukes nor means to retaliate, would you be equally okay with the US bombing Russian cities and killing civilians in numbers equal to those that will starve due to our sanctions? What if instead of sanctions or bombing we developed some kind of chemical weapon that increased the population's metabolism such that equal numbers starve. Would that not be seen as completely despicable? Yet the outcome is the same.
      - yywwbbn 5y ago
- webXL 5y ago
  > Nobody owes another country trade. ...not the rest of the world for wanting to avoid trading with a warmonger. You're conflating decent people with their indecent governments. There are plenty of decent people who would gladly trade with decent people of countries we sanction, but we not only punish the entire country, we punish ourselves in the form of higher prices. Those prices ripple through the economy and we all get less. Virtually everyone loses here, but we're supposed to take solace that the "other side" suffers more. That is pure 1984-level insanity.
  - account42 5y ago
    Those decent people are responsible for their government. They pay taxes to that government. They profit from their governments actions and they are hurt by them. If they don't like being sanction they can rise up and get their government to stop doing things that gets them sanctioned or they can separate themselves from that government by fleeing somewhere else. This may not be fair for the individual - but no less so than it is for the individuals in other countries that their government affects - but collectively, they are their country.