5 ms·
This 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
by ambrozk 5y ago
This 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.
- FrenchDevRemote 5y ago"Go beat/kill this guy" is violence, yet it's just words. Putin haven't killed people with his bare hands(at least for a few years...)But who wouldn't call him violent? If your sanctions cause people to die, of hunger, sickness or anything else, it's violence. I'm not against sanctions depending on the circumstances, but you're just wrong
- WalterBright 5y agoIf people don't follow Putin's orders, they get imprisoned or executed. His orders are not "just words".
- ummonk 5y agoWell only because people follow his orders to imprison those who aren’t following his orders.
- mikem170 5y agoThe same as the guy in the article was imprisoned by the United States? EDIT: Putin puts people in jail for not following marching orders. The U.S. puts people in jail for not following sanctions. It doesn't seem logical to draw a distinction on what is or is not warlike (bullets vs sanctions) based on who jails people, since they both jail people who disobey orders. I assume other factors would be more relevant?
- threeseed 5y ago> cause people to die, of hunger, sickness or anything else, it's violence Which would imply famine, poverty, the flu are forms of violence. This distortion of the English language is so tortured it's just nonsensical at this point.
- rbanffy 5y agoWhen one nation causes another to suffer famine, poverty, and a devastating epidemic, that should pretty much qualify as a form of war.
- 8ytecoder 5y ago1. "Go beat/kill this guy" is specific targeted incitement. 2. Sanctions are not the same as a blockade. What you're describing is a blockade. To be more specific, suspending trade is not the same an active blockade. I haven't seen any indication to see the current sanctions could even function as a blockade.
- SllX 5y agoJust a note on 1. It’s not incitement when it’s orders. Putin is in a position to give the orders.
- cortesoft 5y agoSanctions are saying “we will not trade with you”. Refusing to trade is violence? Is it violence if you walk past a homeless guy who is hungry and you don’t give him food?
- FrenchDevRemote 5y agoif you imprison every person who gives or sell food to him then it's violence
- AlexCoventry 5y agoPolitics is just a continuation of war by other means. :)
- thwayunion 5y agoIt really depends on the particularities of the sanctions, the target of the sanctions, the degree of willingness of other states in the sanctioning process, and how the sanctions are enforced. A blockade that leads to starvation and enforced by the threat of overwhelming force against blockade runners is -- and always has been -- an act of war. None of that nuance is necessary in this case. To be clear, kids: helping a despotic regime with ICBM ambitions evade currency controls so its ruling class can enjoy luxury and fund WMD weapons programs while its citizens literally starve is A Bad Thing.