10 ms·
Five years seems pretty mild when you consider the chief purpose of sanctions is to provide an alternative to war as a means of settling disputes. And this man
by mywittyname 5y ago
Five years seems pretty mild when you consider the chief purpose of sanctions is to provide an alternative to war as a means of settling disputes. And this man is willfully undermining the ability of his country to levy sanctions.
Surely actively undermining the security of ones country is a serious offense.
- rbanffy 5y ago> as a means of settling disputes As a means of forcing someone to unwillingly settle a dispute in your favor that is. I have no sympathy for North Korea, but sanctions are not an alternative to war. Sanctions are an alternative to bullets.
- jacquesm 5y ago> Sanctions are an alternative to bullets. I'm going to have to disagree there. Sanctions once enacted are definitely an alternative to war, after all, bullets all by themselves don't constitute an act but sanctions are an act.
- axlee 5y ago> As a means of forcing someone to unwillingly settle a dispute in your favor that is. what kind of strange take it is? What do you think war is ?
- user3939382 5y agoSomeone recently explained their view, that sanctions are akin to siege warfare in days of old. Whether you agree with that analogy or not, there is an underlying valid point that not all warfare requires physical violence. We use the term cyber warfare as another example.
- chaosite 5y agoCyber-warfare is in most instances comparable to sabotage as used in warfare. I can see the point you're making about sanctions being similar to siege warfare. The main difference being that sieges separate you from your own forces and allies in a way that sanctions don't.
- zardo 5y agoThey are more like blockades, they just use diplomacy and legal systems instead of parking ships with big guns outside the harbor. And I suppose the difference between a siege and a blockade is pretty much whether or not you fire those big guns into the city.
- anikan_vader 5y agoI mean, they're really more like trade embargoes, which have existed for hundreds of years. Thomas Jefferson reacted to the Chesapeake affair, for example, by cutting off all international US trade. In retrospect, probably a pretty ineffective foreign policy choice, since it tanked the US economy and didn't particularly hurt the Brits, who were happy that France could no longer trade with the US. (This occurred during the background of the Napoleonic wars and the Royal Navy impressing US sailors).
- esyir 5y agoYes, but when people say war in isolation, the vast majority of the population take that that, rightfully so, to refer to the conventional bullets flying tanks rolling, literally death dealing war.
- esyir 5y agoThey can be analogous to war, but the whole response about"oh no, what sanctions are also war" is just playing rhetorical games. When people say war, the vast majority of the population will take it to mean boots on the ground, military involved, bullets flying war. The sarcastic
- esyir 5y agoYes, but when people say war in isolation, the vast majority of the population take that that, rightfully so, to refer to the conventional bullets flying tanks rolling, literally death dealing war. Axlees post above reads in amazingly bad faith. It's just a "oh, you're not using this nonstandard definition you fool" type sarcastic response to dismiss the point, contributing nothing in itself.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> there is an underlying valid point that not all warfare requires physical violence. All warfare requires physical violence. If it's not physically violent, “warfare” is being used as a loose metaphor, not a factual description. > We use the term cyber warfare as another example. Cyberwarfare not directed at or effectuating physical destruction of materiel and/or persons is merely metaphorical rather than actual warfare, or is part of the information component of a broader war. (OTOH, cyberwarfare can be, in fact, a direct means of achieving physical destruction of materiel and/or persons.)
- bradlys 5y agoNo, sorry. It doesn’t. You can destroy bridges. No violence there. Yet now you can’t feed the troops. That is still a form of warfare.
- dismantlethesun 5y agoIs destruction of property still violence? Sanctions aren’t hindering anyones property, it’s just refusing to do business with your hated enemy.
- BeFlatXIII 5y agoSanctions are economic warfare.
- dragonwriter 5y agoBy that standard, all international intercourse is one or another form of warfare.
- rbanffy 5y agoWhen intended to harm one party, yes. When the US technically and financially supported the groups that caused the illegal removal of the previous elected Brazilian president, it was warfare. When Putin financially supports the French far-right, it’s also warfare.
- tc313 5y agoThat’s what he’s saying. Sanctions are war without bullets.
- dragonwriter 5y agoWar is diplomacy with bullets.
- colinmhayes 5y agoHow are bullets and war different?
- polski-g 5y agoSanctions are war.
- rbanffy 5y agoIt’s war, without bullets.
- AsusToss 5y agoSometimes bullets are amongst the items sanctioned, so not necessarily
- hxkabsnxksl 5y ago
- hxkabsnxksl 5y agoIs this the vibe you are going with? https://original.antiwar.com/daniel_larison/2021/05/03/sanctions-are-war/ https://original.antiwar.com/daniel_larison/2021/05/03/sanct... Edit: more sauce: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/04/what-are-sanctions-radio-davos/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/04/what-are-sanctions-ra... Is also a Putin line, so take as you will.
- hxkabsnxksl 5y agoMore sauce: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/04/what-are-sanctions-radio-davos/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/04/what-are-sanctions-ra...
- ambrozk 5y agoThis is a dumb statement every time it's asserted. Sanctions are not an act of war in any sense. Not in theory nor in a pragmatic sense. The distinction between war and other modes of interstate hostility is an important one which we should not abandon. "Sanctions are war" is the same sort of statement as "speech is violence": it's sophistic, and it collapses nuance instead of encouraging it.
- babypuncher 5y agoSabotaging your own military's weapons still sounds an awful lot like treason
- dmitrygr 5y agoSanctions have never ever in human history worked, so more like sabotaging one's placebos...
- AYBABTME 5y agoIt at least worked so far in preventing another Korean war. It didn't topple the Kim regime, but South Korea is mostly safe now.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> It at least worked so far in preventing another Korean war. It would have to work at coercing a final end to the 1950- Korean War before it could have a chance to succeed or fail at preventing another one.
- Delitio 5y agoDo you have any sources for this?
- webmobdev 5y ago"Sanctions are Economic Weapons of Mass Destruction, We Must Carefully Consider their Consequences": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFCpMOCVdAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFCpMOCVdAw
- VectorLock 5y agoWar is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means.
- dragonwriter 5y agoWhile often treated as a conclusion, its worth noting that that's the antithesis in a thesis/antithesis/synthesis triad.
- Consultant32452 5y agoSanctions aren't an alternative to war. We like to imagine dropping bombs on someone is less polite than starving them to death, but it's just an illusion.
- olalonde 5y ago> Surely actively undermining the security of ones country is a serious offense. The information he shared in North Korea is widely available online. Perhaps unethical but I wouldn't qualify it as a serious offense.