6 ms·

You misunderstand the goal of the sanctions. Sanctions are there to cut off 1-2% of GDP each year from the dictatorships' economies. Over 30 years that turns

by ajuc 1y ago

You misunderstand the goal of the sanctions. Sanctions are there to cut off 1-2% of GDP each year from the dictatorships' economies. Over 30 years that turns countries into harmless (to the West) backwater shitholes. The consequences towards the local populations are just a side-effect (sometimes wanted, sometimes not). You cannot expect people outside of your dicatorship to prioritize your well being over their own safety. It's on you to fix your country. If you won't - people will isolate you to keep their countries safe. Can't really blame them.

cess11 1y ago
No, they're there to kill people. It's war by non-military means, and the US is waging such a war on a very large portion of the world. There is a recent study concluding that sanctions kill half a million people per annum: <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00189-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...> I don't know what you mean by dictatorship but I'm not exactly adverse to applying the same term to the US, it being a one-party state with the audacity of having two parties, and either way, it's by far the most hostile and violent of contemporary state powers.
- ajuc 1y ago
  When alcoholic husband beats his wife so they put him in prison and the wife starves - is it the fault of the people who put the husband in prison? Or the fault of the husband for beating his wife and the fault of the wife for staying in that relationship? I get it - it's hard. But you cannot expect the whole world to enable your alcoholic husband/militaristic dictator.
  - cess11 1y ago
    Not sure what your supposed analogy is referring to but I'm all for boycott and sanctions towards the US if that's what you mean.
    - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
      in the analogy you would be the husband
  - grafmax 1y ago
    That presumes some kind of just system imprisoning the husband. In fact the US pursues its power and wealth, supporting dictatorships and undermining democracies to the degree it believes doings so benefits its special interests and geopolitical calculus. Even to the point instituting famine against children in horrific genocide which is happening today. Yet US hegemony is collapsing. It is simply running out of the money and power necessary to be a racketeer that cynically calls itself world police.
    - ajuc 1y ago
      Russia invades Ukraine. The West puts Russia in economic prison. Russians suffer. US is only a part of the system. Even if you remove US from the picture - EU alone would continue to sanction Russia.
      - grafmax 1y ago
        Sanctions against Russia only are somewhat effective with BRICS. Without the US, sanctions lose even more of their power.
- miningape 1y ago
  Dress it up however you like, the fact remains that countries can choose to not provide goods and services to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. There's absolutely no moral obligation on an individual in any country to defy these laws and risk prison time - if they want change they can petition, vote and protest. Beyond that the West is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with us (and therefore had sanctions placed on them) - that responsibility lies solely with the people and governments of sanctioned nations. We shouldn't be forced into supporting those who seek to destroy us based on HuMAnITaRiaN grounds.
  - VerminOctopus1 1y ago
    > The west is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with us This US-centric mindset is so disgusting and emblematic of the narcissism of the west. The country has established itself as the most potent force for violence and economic abuse in the world.
    - miningape 1y ago
      You can easily take "the west" out of that sentence and replace it with any other country and it's still fair. E.g. China sanctions a country then "China is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with them" It's entirely the responsibility of each government to ensure the welfare of its own citizens. Anything more is purely goodwill. Anything less is treason. You're just coping because the US/west is the predominant power.
    - rangestransform 1y ago
      My country should prioritize its own people first, second, third, fourth, fifth....and all other people a distant last, if at all. It sucks that the people in the US don't benefit as much as they could from being world hegemon, but that doesn't mean they would be better off if the US was in a lesser position in international relations.
  - cess11 1y ago
    The word "cooperate" carries a lot of weight in your reasoning. Could you give some examples? One could also flip your argument and consider the many decades of US narcoterrorism, regime change operations and so on and the rather long line of failed states in its wake, and draw the conclusion that we ought to actually not submit to this 'world power' regardless of whether it 'dresses itself up' to be 'cooperative' while it engages in these activities or not.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
jiggawatts 1y ago
This is the right answer, and it's sad to see it so far down the list. This is the precise realpolitik of international sanctions, it's just not spoken out loud that often. Don't believe me, some random commenter. Listen to the Professor of History and Grand Strategy at the U.S. Naval War College explain it: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B0k5ToABH7o https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B0k5ToABH7o
ACCount37 1y ago
This. The point is, and always was, to exert economic pressure. Some sanctions aim at military capabilities directly - but most just aim to throw a wrench into a country's economy overall. Which does hurt the population - but it also hurts a country's capabilities, which is the goal. If North Korea wasn't sanctioned to shit, it would have had the resources to build not dozens but hundreds of ICBMs. This is undesirable, so North Korea remains sanctioned to shit.
wartywhoa23 1y ago
[dead]

by ajuc 1y ago

cess11 1y ago

No, they're there to kill people. It's war by non-military means, and the US is waging such a war on a very large portion of the world. There is a recent study concluding that sanctions kill half a million people per annum: <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00189-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...> I don't know what you mean by dictatorship but I'm not exactly adverse to applying the same term to the US, it being a one-party state with the audacity of having two parties, and either way, it's by far the most hostile and violent of contemporary state powers.

ajuc 1y ago
When alcoholic husband beats his wife so they put him in prison and the wife starves - is it the fault of the people who put the husband in prison? Or the fault of the husband for beating his wife and the fault of the wife for staying in that relationship? I get it - it's hard. But you cannot expect the whole world to enable your alcoholic husband/militaristic dictator.
- cess11 1y ago
  Not sure what your supposed analogy is referring to but I'm all for boycott and sanctions towards the US if that's what you mean.
  - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
    in the analogy you would be the husband
- grafmax 1y ago
  That presumes some kind of just system imprisoning the husband. In fact the US pursues its power and wealth, supporting dictatorships and undermining democracies to the degree it believes doings so benefits its special interests and geopolitical calculus. Even to the point instituting famine against children in horrific genocide which is happening today. Yet US hegemony is collapsing. It is simply running out of the money and power necessary to be a racketeer that cynically calls itself world police.
  - ajuc 1y ago
    Russia invades Ukraine. The West puts Russia in economic prison. Russians suffer. US is only a part of the system. Even if you remove US from the picture - EU alone would continue to sanction Russia.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      Sanctions against Russia only are somewhat effective with BRICS. Without the US, sanctions lose even more of their power.
miningape 1y ago
Dress it up however you like, the fact remains that countries can choose to not provide goods and services to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. There's absolutely no moral obligation on an individual in any country to defy these laws and risk prison time - if they want change they can petition, vote and protest. Beyond that the West is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with us (and therefore had sanctions placed on them) - that responsibility lies solely with the people and governments of sanctioned nations. We shouldn't be forced into supporting those who seek to destroy us based on HuMAnITaRiaN grounds.
- VerminOctopus1 1y ago
  > The west is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with us This US-centric mindset is so disgusting and emblematic of the narcissism of the west. The country has established itself as the most potent force for violence and economic abuse in the world.
  - miningape 1y ago
    You can easily take "the west" out of that sentence and replace it with any other country and it's still fair. E.g. China sanctions a country then "China is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with them" It's entirely the responsibility of each government to ensure the welfare of its own citizens. Anything more is purely goodwill. Anything less is treason. You're just coping because the US/west is the predominant power.
  - rangestransform 1y ago
    My country should prioritize its own people first, second, third, fourth, fifth....and all other people a distant last, if at all. It sucks that the people in the US don't benefit as much as they could from being world hegemon, but that doesn't mean they would be better off if the US was in a lesser position in international relations.
- cess11 1y ago
  The word "cooperate" carries a lot of weight in your reasoning. Could you give some examples? One could also flip your argument and consider the many decades of US narcoterrorism, regime change operations and so on and the rather long line of failed states in its wake, and draw the conclusion that we ought to actually not submit to this 'world power' regardless of whether it 'dresses itself up' to be 'cooperative' while it engages in these activities or not.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

jiggawatts 1y ago

This is the right answer, and it's sad to see it so far down the list. This is the precise realpolitik of international sanctions, it's just not spoken out loud that often. Don't believe me, some random commenter. Listen to the Professor of History and Grand Strategy at the U.S. Naval War College explain it: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B0k5ToABH7o https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B0k5ToABH7o

ACCount37 1y ago

This. The point is, and always was, to exert economic pressure. Some sanctions aim at military capabilities directly - but most just aim to throw a wrench into a country's economy overall. Which does hurt the population - but it also hurts a country's capabilities, which is the goal. If North Korea wasn't sanctioned to shit, it would have had the resources to build not dozens but hundreds of ICBMs. This is undesirable, so North Korea remains sanctioned to shit.

wartywhoa23 1y ago

[dead]