6 ms·
The utter stupidity of thinking that sanctions could be an effective response or deterrent to military aggression boggles my mind. Force must be countered with
by _xnmw 4y ago
The utter stupidity of thinking that sanctions could be an effective response or deterrent to military aggression boggles my mind. Force must be countered with force, nothing less. Anyone willing to expend soldiers lives is not going to be deterred by mere economic pain (the pain they've already chose, i.e. war, is much worse!). We don't impose monetary fines on murderers, we capture them and put them in jail, or kill them in the process.
Furthermore, sanctions, by definition, hurt both parties. It is impossible to design a boycott that doesn't hurt both the buyer and the seller. The only question is: who gets hurt more? If Europe was so determined to "stand with Ukraine" then they should've put soldiers on the ground over there, not shot themselves in the foot with sanctions on goods that they need.
- idontwantthis 4y agoHow do you go to war with a country you also rely on economically? Would Europe keep buying Russian gas while killing Russian soldiers?
- skylabmelody 4y agoEurope is buying Russian gas at a premium through China and India.
- kubafu 4y agoCare to share a link to the source of this information?
- celticninja 4y agoNo it isn't. Citation required because there is no evidence of that.
- skylabmelody 4y agoBloomberg: "China is able to secure cheaper supply and resell shipments from more expensive exporters to utilities in Europe and Asia, while Russia can continue selling fuel at a profit." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-08/china-snaps-up-half-price-russian-lng-as-europe-shuns-supplies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-08/china-sna... Financial Times: "The world’s largest buyer of liquefied natural gas [China] is reselling some of its surplus LNG cargoes due to weak energy demand at home. This has provided the spot market with an ample supply that Europe has tapped, despite the higher prices." https://www.ft.com/content/1e20467a-5b53-42b7-ad89-49808f7e1780 https://www.ft.com/content/1e20467a-5b53-42b7-ad89-49808f7e1...
- lazyjones 4y agoPutting NATO soldiers on the ground is equivalent to declaring WW3, few are willing to do that. Therefore, Ukraine's fate is sealed and the outcome is dictated by Russia's desires. The open question is how long it will take and at what cost, to Ukraine, its allies and Russia. And it seems that there are vested interests in prolonging the conflict as much as possible.
- Isinlor 4y agoIt's not equivalent to declaring WW3. Russia is not capable of fighting NATO and nobody besides Russia has any interest in Ukraine invasion. But NATO soldiers are not needed in Ukraine. Ukrainians just need weapons. Ukrainians have plenty of capable and very motivated men. And the weapons are cheap, very cheap in comparison to loses from gas etc.
- celticninja 4y agoWeapons are already being supplied. What is your point?
- Isinlor 4y agoThey need more and they need long range weapons.
- BurningFrog 4y agoRussia can kill everyone in NATO over an afternoon.
- type0 4y agoThen they will kill everyone on this planet, as Putin postulated Russians will go to paradise as martyrs. Good for them I guess.
- hkpack 4y ago> Therefore, Ukraine's fate is sealed and the outcome is dictated by Russia's desires. That is very far from the truth - please check the recent events. It is possible to fight against Russia, and it is in the best interest of the Europe and the collective west to do so. For multiple decades Russia was using energy as a way to corrupt EU. It was never only about Ukraine - occupation of Ukraine was always the first step. Baltic countries and Poland understand that very well, please listen to them. If Ukraine falls, Russia will invade Europe in a decade with Ukrainian military on its side. Europe need to remove its dependence on the Russian gas completely for its own safety. Inflation is a very small price to pay compared to the alternative.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago> We don't impose monetary fines on murderers, we capture them and put them in jail, or kill them in the process. Depends on the murderer.... sometimes we send them more soldiers to help them in places like afghanistan.. and syria.. and iraq.. and many more. I live in a very small eu/nato country that noone cares about, and we still do it... so my taxpayer money is used for occupying eg. syria right now, in a conflict we literally have no interest in and profit nothing from.
- thinkindie 4y agoI think I've missed the news that EU/Nato occupied Syria.
- dougmwne 4y agoThese sound like nice words on paper, but how do you go to war with a nuclear power without triggering Armageddon? It’s a serious question. MAD is absolutely still a thing and nukes are the best protector of sovereignty ever devised.
- Isinlor 4y agoWhat should we do if Russia attacks Finland tomorrow? Or Baltics or Poland? Well, good game, now give up, they have nukes? ... Also Ukraine does not ask for military interventions. Poland offered military intervention, Ukraine refused. Ukrainians want weapons.
- neoberg 4y ago> What should we do if Russia attacks Finland tomorrow? I'm not saying this is what we should do but it's what will happen probably: Freeze Nato accession, send guns, helmets etc. Basically whatever happened to Ukraine.
- lostmsu 4y agoFinland is also part of the EU, so not just guns and helmets.
- jostiniane 4y ago
- viraptor 4y ago> Anyone willing to expend soldiers lives is not going to be deterred by mere economic pain You're assuming that money and power matters less to Putin / oligarchs than soldiers' lives. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption. > We don't impose monetary fines on murderers Individually - no. At a larger scale - yes. For example fines / taxes from https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act
- _xnmw 4y ago> You're assuming that money and power matters less to Putin / oligarchs than lives. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption. My point is, they've already risked far more than just their money and power by going to war. They've also risked their lives (if there was a coup, they'd be dead), and the lives of their countrymen, and the future/standing of their whole country. Such people are not going to be deterred by sanctions they already knew were coming.
- nprateem 4y agoMost murderers don't have thousands of nukes
- celticninja 4y agoThe sanctions ensure that even those Russians who don't send their children to fight and die in Ukraine feel the effects of the war. Plus if Europe out boots on the ground the chance of nuclear escalation is increased. Sanctions are part of the package, not the whole package. Also Europe doesnt need Russian gas. It has become reliant on it sure, but it is weaning itself off that and that gives them more power and Russia less in the long term. Your points look at the immediate short term (less than 12 months) and does little to consider beyond that timeframe.
- cloutchaser 4y ago> Also Europe doesnt need Russian gas. Jesus christ. What have you been reading.
- criley2 4y agoThe utter stupidity of thinking that (hey, this is your line, I'm just repeating it) NATO could put soldiers into Ukraine without starting a thermonuclear global holocaust in the form of WW3. I would go so far as to suggest that NATO has done 110% of what they can against Russia. Unlimited money for Ukraine, unlimited supplies for Ukraine, unlimited training for Ukraine, and even now basically unlimited intelligence! Think of the HIMARS! The Karkhiv offensive is Ukraine's 'first truly western' attack, complete with a southern feint, built entirely on western intelligence and strategy. And as a result, Ukraine is routing the Russian military who are in drop-everything-and-run mode in half of Ukraine. Is that not a success?? Europe/US westernized/NATOized the Ukrainian military in about 6 months flat and spared no expense in the process. Short of starting a nuclear world war 3, it's hard to imagine doing more.
- Bayart 4y agoThe Ukrainian army has been brought up to NATO standards over the last 8 years. The training programs for officers and NCOs were quite successful.
- 451mov 4y agoThe wests "support" amounts to indebting Ukraine for the next 100 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Democracy_Defense_Lend-Lease_Act_of_2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Democracy_Defense_Lend...
- criley2 4y agoLol I am going to describe your reply as Russian propaganda for a number of reasons: 1) You "" quoted "support" as a way to diminish it, even though the Western support has clearly been absolutely instrumental in every possible way to the Ukrainian resistance. To deny this is either ignorance or malfeasance. Without western "support" Kyiv would have fallen in the first weeks. Instead, Ukrainians are fully routing the Russians who are in mass retreat. Some "support"!! 2) American lend-lease is a way to reduce domestic red tape and expedite transfers of military equipment. It's a formality and the US is not some creditor hounding nations. In fact, some nations never repaid the WW2 debts at all and no one cares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Repayment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Repayment Your characterization of it is... bizarre and weird... unless you're pushing agitprop. If the Ukrainian people make some token tiny payment 50 years from now as a commemoration of this beautiful new brotherhood, it will be a special moment. But if it never comes, no one will care. 3) American lend-lease is SEPARATE from the monetary assistance -- the $15 billion dollars the US has given to Ukraine since the war began is not a lend-lease debt. And American lend-lease obviously doesn't cover things like the MASSIVE Polish contributions. To lump all of Western "support" into "lend-lease", when in reality it's not, again is either ignorance or malfeasance.
- brnt 4y agoForce ain't free either. I frankly think it's pretty good, being at war without the casualties (on my safe-ass European side that is).
- Vinnl 4y agoI think (though I'm just regurgitating something I read somewhere) that the idea behind sanctions is not to use them. If you're using them, they've failed, in a sense. So the idea is not so much to "stand with Ukraine", it's to stand with whoever is next. The threat of sanctions should be enough to prevent the future use of force, but you have to be prepared to pull through when they're ignored for that to work.
- hackerlight 4y ago> effective response or deterrent to military aggression (1) We shouldn't conflate current deterrent & future deterrent. Putin may be all in already, but you can signal to a future autocrat that he'll risk the stability and safety of his rule if he follows in Putin's footsteps. Selfish autocrats don't want to die. (2) Some targeted sanctions are actually effective. You hamper their military industry supply chain, which they need for a long war.
- agilob 4y agoSanctions made things worse, but Baltic countries and Poland were leaving Russian and Belarusian gas, oil and coal for long time making it not great before Russia attacked Ukraine. Estonia left Belarusian gas a month before the attack, same as Poland banned import of Russian coal causing shortage of coal locally. The countries were doing it for decades, slowly but surely moving to others sources of fuels. The sanctions only accelerated this energy crisis that was in the making. The countries are not super relevant and I wasn't able to find many sources for it in English, but here are some: 08.12.2014 https://www.reuters.com/article/baltic-gas-idUSL6N0TS2T320141208 https://www.reuters.com/article/baltic-gas-idUSL6N0TS2T32014... 17.10.2018 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/10/17/eastern-europe-is-trying-break-its-dependence-russian-gas-western-europe-is-doing-opposite/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/10/17/eastern-euro... 03.02.2022 https://news.err.ee/1608487619/estonia-suspends-all-oil-transit-from-belarus https://news.err.ee/1608487619/estonia-suspends-all-oil-tran...
- Bayart 4y agoUtter rubbish. If you want to send kids to war, do it with your own. Ukraine is neither in NATO, nor the EU. The best course of action is supporting it while it frees itself with its own means, which is what is happening.
- Isinlor 4y agoUkraine is not even asking for military intervention. Poland was offering intervention, Ukraine refused. They want weapons. Offensive, long range weapons for counteroffensives. They have plenty of very motivated and capable men. NATO can do that easily. We just adhere to some imaginary list of things that can and can not be delivered. The cost of gas shortages are many times the cost of weapons and weapons make actual, immediate difference for people on the ground.
- cloutchaser 4y agoSo support it with weapons and whatever you want. But don't commit economic suicide in the meantime. Then you won't be able to support ukraine over the long run anyway. Support and sanctions are two seperate things.
- Isinlor 4y agoWe need to get out of gas anyway due to the global warming. We also can't keep being vulnerable to Russian black mail. We need to increase investment in renewable power and build more nuclear power plants.
- cloutchaser 4y agoYes. I agree. How do you do that with 40% less gas in 1 year? You can't, because you will have rioting in the street, you will have people literally freezing to death, and no green politician will ever get elected again. Oh, and btw, what's the answer now to this gas shortage? Burning more coal and firewood. So your proposed vision is doubly going in the wrong direction. This isn't like switching from windows to linux. It takes years, and people actually die in the meantime if you get it wrong.
- BurningFrog 4y agoWar also hurts both parties.
- Isinlor 4y agoUkraine does not ask for military interventions. My country Poland offered military intervention during the first trip to Kyiv after invasion, Ukraine refused. Ukrainians want weapons. Last I check they were asking for stuff like ATACMS. Listen to what Ukrainians are saying. They know what is the best for them in the current situation.
- type0 4y agoYeah, if Polish troops entered, with high likelihood Belarus would as well. At that point it was Putins dream to escalate it to as many countries as possible.
- Isinlor 4y agoBelarus is rather unimportant. They are 10 million country with GDP per capita lower than Russia, spending little bit more than 1% of GDP on their army. Belarusian army has also zero combat experience. They have no reason whatsoever to die in Putin's war. No glory, no territory that they want, no hatered of Ukrainians. There were soldiers openly calling for desertion which was rather impressive at least for me. It's possible that Lukashenko was actively trying to join the conflict, but the army told him no. Poland was offering something of the form of peacekeeping mission and Zelensky was afraid that it could lead to freezing of the conflict based on his own reporting in an interview with Meduza. Ukrainians wanted to go on counteroffensive from the beginning.
- seniorivn 4y agolukashenko's army doesn't tell him no, nobody does. That's the whole point of dictatorship
- bryanlarsen 4y agoThis comment is not going to age well. Russian positions in Kherson and Kharkiv are collapsing like dominoes. The price that Russia is receiving for their oil due to sanctions is approaching their cost of production. Most Russian natural gas production is being flared off rather than being sold. European natural gas storage tanks are 80-95% full. 6 new LNG terminals are coming online in December. Rather than 40% less gas this winter, Europe will have 15% less gas. Everybody who had a part to play in Russian defeat is going to be patting themselves on the back. Sanctions may have had only a small part in that, but it was a part, and anybody complaining about sanctions is going to be on the wrong side of history.