5 ms·

The article is celebrating this as some huge win but have all these sanctions stopped the war in Ukraine? I feel like this is the same story any time we try sa

The article is celebrating this as some huge win but have all these sanctions stopped the war in Ukraine? I feel like this is the same story any time we try sanctions, i.e. Iran. The sanctions have a negative effect on the target economy, but are completely ineffective at achieving any kind of policy goals. 10-15 years from now you are going to have China (An economic and manufacturing superpower) aligning with Russia (An energy and military superpower). It astounds me that people don't see the idiocy and danger in what we are encouraging; also the chilling effect of letting the world know that we wield economic power as a weapon, driving the BRICS nations further away economically.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> have all these sanctions stopped the war in Ukraine? They’ve noticeably impacted Russia’s ability to import ammunition. Separately, there is a moral element to the calculus: would you have us trading with Nazi Germany while our allies died fighting them? (I agree with you on e.g. Iran, Sudan, Cuba and Venezuela. If a country isn’t actively bearing arms against us or our allies, we shouldn’t have sanctions on them.) > China (An economic and manufacturing superpower) aligning with Russia (An energy and military superpower) Russia is not a military superpower. It is barely a regional power. Technologically, we’re seeing its cutting-edge kit destroyed by old NATO tech, which is destroying its export market. Geostrategically, Moscow has proved irrational. Beijing, less so. Russia as a Chinese vassal seems more stable than permitting it to act as an independent power.
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  I don't really want to get into these kinds of arguments. But let's deconstruct the statement "Technologically, we’re seeing its cutting-edge kit destroyed by old NATO tech". Why isn't all the new, cutting-edge equipment winning the war? Why isn't Ukraine capturing territory. The US spent trillions in Afghanistan, with the best technology. It's 2023, and the Taliban currently control the country. To be a military superpower you have to actually win wars, not spend money and talk about them.
  - Gibbon1 3y ago
    There is an argument that the US has a big stick not to win wars but to convince everyone else not to bother. Also an argument the US prefers to spend money than soldiers lives. And you can argue that all things considered the Taliban are a bunch of dummies because they could have good faith negotiated a power sharing agreement that kept the money flowing.
- klyrs 3y ago
  > If a country isn’t actively bearing arms against us or our allies, we shouldn’t have sanctions on them. I'd add another category here, sanctions were crucial to end the South African apartheid.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > sanctions were crucial to end the South African apartheid I think there’s a genuine exception for globally-coördinated sanctions. That said, South Africa was a special case. The USSR had just collapsed. The West had global hegemony. Outside that context, I wouldn’t expect the experiment to replicate.
    - simfree 3y ago
      Rhodesia, Nicaragua and Thailand all ended up with regime change in part due to sanctions making life more difficult.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Yeah Cuba and Venezuela in particular. They don't really do anything wrong except they have the 'unfavourable' state system. Pretty easy to say: "hey look communism doesn't work" when you are causing it to fail. I'm not a fan of hard communism either but something more in the middle between the US capitalism and communism would really be great both for poor people and the environment.
xedrac 3y ago
> It astounds me that people don't see the idiocy and danger in what we are encouraging You make it sound like this is our fault. What would you have us do? Cower to Russia and let them have their way in Ukraine? Nothing empowers Russia more than bending to their every whim out of fear. And China may not even be able to hold it together for 10-15 more years without communism failing them.
- rayiner 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mint2 3y ago
    Nothing matters aside from just money and the monkey sphere of one to some people
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      I’m sure a lot of people didn’t give a shit about Bangladesh in 1971 either.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        I mean that’s my motivating example. Imagine if Russia had tried to help Bangladesh break free of Pakistan instead of India. I’m sure the US would have intervened and made up some shit about protecting the territorial integrity of an “ally.”
        selimthegrim 3y ago
        My understanding is the USSR did make some noises when the US sent an aircraft carrier that direction
        rayiner 3y ago
        I think the impulse that made the US do that is the same impulse at play in Ukraine. Notwithstanding the difference about whether it’s supporting or opposing independence (the US takes either side in a variety of conflicts), it’s really about a proxy war against Russia/the USSR.
Gibbon1 3y ago
Continuity bias seems to prevent people from understanding that in 10-15 years Russia will be less relevant than Mexico. And the longer the war drags on the faster that will come to be. You might think that's inane but currently Mexico's population is 127M, GDP $1.27T vs Russia at 143M and $1.8T.
qwytw 3y ago
So you're saying that Russia under sanctions is not weaker than it would be otherwise? Crippling the Russian economy, their ability to project power and the living conditions for middle class Russians (at the end of the day they are to blame for the war) seem like good things. > don't see the idiocy Please do suggest any less 'idiotic' options? > effect of letting the world know that we wield economic power as a weapon I guess it's still preferable to nukes and carpet bombing (which were necessary the last time fascist imperialism was left unchecked...)
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  Yes, Russia is "weaker" than it would be otherwise. For now, until they economically align with China and circumvent the sanctions completely, and form a series of Axis powers, which is literally what happened the "last time fascist imperialism went unchecked" and turned into the deadliest conflict in human history. The least idiotic option is diplomacy. As for nukes and carpet bombing, that was never on the table. Russia has nukes the same as the United States.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Middle class Russians are not to blame for the war. They're mostly city dwellers and generally know how the world works, usually hate the regime because they are losing their tech jobs and western goods but they can't do anything about it because they prefer life outside of prison. The big masses of poorer rural people are generally more indoctrinated by propaganda and really believe in it. They're the ones voting for Putin (though I doubt elections are fair anyway). They're more what keeps the regime in power but I don't think you can blame them either. They simply have too little access to uncensored information.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > they can't do anything about it because they prefer life outside of prison So they can do something after all? Violence is always an option (if you have no other options).
- throw9away6 3y ago
simonblack 3y ago
10-15 years from now you are going to have China (An economic and manufacturing superpower) aligning with Russia (An energy and military superpower). It astounds me that people don't see the idiocy and danger in what we are encouraging; also the chilling effect of letting the world know that we wield economic power as a weapon, driving the BRICS nations further away economically. That isn't 10-15 years away. That's right now. As the rest of the world quotes: "Never interrupt your adversary while they are making a big mistake". The US seems intent on going to war with one country that can destroy the US in half an hour with nukes, and with another that has much more manufacturing capacity and four times the military-age population and can destroy the US conventionally. That's a dumb decision that's on a par with the dumb decision to kick off Operation Barbarossa in 1941 when the Germans expected that it would be a breeze to attack the Soviet Union which had a greater population and had a far greater manufacturing capacity than Germany had.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> have all these sanctions stopped the war in Ukraine? They’ve noticeably impacted Russia’s ability to import ammunition. Separately, there is a moral element to the calculus: would you have us trading with Nazi Germany while our allies died fighting them? (I agree with you on e.g. Iran, Sudan, Cuba and Venezuela. If a country isn’t actively bearing arms against us or our allies, we shouldn’t have sanctions on them.) > China (An economic and manufacturing superpower) aligning with Russia (An energy and military superpower) Russia is not a military superpower. It is barely a regional power. Technologically, we’re seeing its cutting-edge kit destroyed by old NATO tech, which is destroying its export market. Geostrategically, Moscow has proved irrational. Beijing, less so. Russia as a Chinese vassal seems more stable than permitting it to act as an independent power.

oceanplexian 3y ago
I don't really want to get into these kinds of arguments. But let's deconstruct the statement "Technologically, we’re seeing its cutting-edge kit destroyed by old NATO tech". Why isn't all the new, cutting-edge equipment winning the war? Why isn't Ukraine capturing territory. The US spent trillions in Afghanistan, with the best technology. It's 2023, and the Taliban currently control the country. To be a military superpower you have to actually win wars, not spend money and talk about them.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  There is an argument that the US has a big stick not to win wars but to convince everyone else not to bother. Also an argument the US prefers to spend money than soldiers lives. And you can argue that all things considered the Taliban are a bunch of dummies because they could have good faith negotiated a power sharing agreement that kept the money flowing.
klyrs 3y ago
> If a country isn’t actively bearing arms against us or our allies, we shouldn’t have sanctions on them. I'd add another category here, sanctions were crucial to end the South African apartheid.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > sanctions were crucial to end the South African apartheid I think there’s a genuine exception for globally-coördinated sanctions. That said, South Africa was a special case. The USSR had just collapsed. The West had global hegemony. Outside that context, I wouldn’t expect the experiment to replicate.
  - simfree 3y ago
    Rhodesia, Nicaragua and Thailand all ended up with regime change in part due to sanctions making life more difficult.
wkat4242 3y ago
Yeah Cuba and Venezuela in particular. They don't really do anything wrong except they have the 'unfavourable' state system. Pretty easy to say: "hey look communism doesn't work" when you are causing it to fail. I'm not a fan of hard communism either but something more in the middle between the US capitalism and communism would really be great both for poor people and the environment.

xedrac 3y ago

> It astounds me that people don't see the idiocy and danger in what we are encouraging You make it sound like this is our fault. What would you have us do? Cower to Russia and let them have their way in Ukraine? Nothing empowers Russia more than bending to their every whim out of fear. And China may not even be able to hold it together for 10-15 more years without communism failing them.

rayiner 3y ago
[flagged]
- mint2 3y ago
  Nothing matters aside from just money and the monkey sphere of one to some people
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    I’m sure a lot of people didn’t give a shit about Bangladesh in 1971 either.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      I mean that’s my motivating example. Imagine if Russia had tried to help Bangladesh break free of Pakistan instead of India. I’m sure the US would have intervened and made up some shit about protecting the territorial integrity of an “ally.”
      - selimthegrim 3y ago
        My understanding is the USSR did make some noises when the US sent an aircraft carrier that direction
        rayiner 3y ago
        I think the impulse that made the US do that is the same impulse at play in Ukraine. Notwithstanding the difference about whether it’s supporting or opposing independence (the US takes either side in a variety of conflicts), it’s really about a proxy war against Russia/the USSR.

Gibbon1 3y ago

Continuity bias seems to prevent people from understanding that in 10-15 years Russia will be less relevant than Mexico. And the longer the war drags on the faster that will come to be. You might think that's inane but currently Mexico's population is 127M, GDP $1.27T vs Russia at 143M and $1.8T.

qwytw 3y ago

So you're saying that Russia under sanctions is not weaker than it would be otherwise? Crippling the Russian economy, their ability to project power and the living conditions for middle class Russians (at the end of the day they are to blame for the war) seem like good things. > don't see the idiocy Please do suggest any less 'idiotic' options? > effect of letting the world know that we wield economic power as a weapon I guess it's still preferable to nukes and carpet bombing (which were necessary the last time fascist imperialism was left unchecked...)

oceanplexian 3y ago
Yes, Russia is "weaker" than it would be otherwise. For now, until they economically align with China and circumvent the sanctions completely, and form a series of Axis powers, which is literally what happened the "last time fascist imperialism went unchecked" and turned into the deadliest conflict in human history. The least idiotic option is diplomacy. As for nukes and carpet bombing, that was never on the table. Russia has nukes the same as the United States.
wkat4242 3y ago
Middle class Russians are not to blame for the war. They're mostly city dwellers and generally know how the world works, usually hate the regime because they are losing their tech jobs and western goods but they can't do anything about it because they prefer life outside of prison. The big masses of poorer rural people are generally more indoctrinated by propaganda and really believe in it. They're the ones voting for Putin (though I doubt elections are fair anyway). They're more what keeps the regime in power but I don't think you can blame them either. They simply have too little access to uncensored information.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > they can't do anything about it because they prefer life outside of prison So they can do something after all? Violence is always an option (if you have no other options).
throw9away6 3y ago

simonblack 3y ago

10-15 years from now you are going to have China (An economic and manufacturing superpower) aligning with Russia (An energy and military superpower). It astounds me that people don't see the idiocy and danger in what we are encouraging; also the chilling effect of letting the world know that we wield economic power as a weapon, driving the BRICS nations further away economically. That isn't 10-15 years away. That's right now. As the rest of the world quotes: "Never interrupt your adversary while they are making a big mistake". The US seems intent on going to war with one country that can destroy the US in half an hour with nukes, and with another that has much more manufacturing capacity and four times the military-age population and can destroy the US conventionally. That's a dumb decision that's on a par with the dumb decision to kick off Operation Barbarossa in 1941 when the Germans expected that it would be a breeze to attack the Soviet Union which had a greater population and had a far greater manufacturing capacity than Germany had.