Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

history.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#51

Post by DennisP »

Terry_Roll wrote: post #19
laurent92 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you say the West had pollution? Isn’t it China? Do you say USA and Europe have higher pollution?

Cleaning products are considered pollution by NASA which is why they came up with a list of plants to clean the air in their hypothetical moonbase. You also have energy efficient homes which dont do the air exchange as much allowing for a build up of pollutants in the home and office but not all of them get considered pollutants. And just because you cant see the particulates like soot, doesnt mean the air is cleaner…

A well-designed energy-efficient home has plenty of air exchange. It's just that the fresh air comes in at one place, gets filtered, and exchanges heat and humidity with the outgoing air in an ERV system.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#52

Post by LanceH »

stormbrew wrote: post #25
LanceH wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sanctions is not feeding them -- but doing nothing to stop them from feeding themselves. Certainly not stopping them from behaving nicely and getting to interact again. War is shooting people dead. There is a stark difference.

In the modern world, no country is self-sufficient. This isn't even an accident, it's an explicit goal of the modern liberal economic system, partly to try to dampen the conditions that lead to war. At any rate, sanctions create consequences for trade for third parties as well, so any country that doesn't come along on it will also face the possibility of being shut off from trade with the EU, the US, and the rest of…

We aren't trading with people conducting war isn't the same as going to war. It just isn't. It is their choice to invade, enabling their invasion through trade would be closer to war than sanctions.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#53

Post by laurent92 »

Terry_Roll wrote: post #19
laurent92 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you say the West had pollution? Isn’t it China? Do you say USA and Europe have higher pollution?

Cleaning products are considered pollution by NASA which is why they came up with a list of plants to clean the air in their hypothetical moonbase. You also have energy efficient homes which dont do the air exchange as much allowing for a build up of pollutants in the home and office but not all of them get considered pollutants. And just because you cant see the particulates like soot, doesnt mean the air is cleaner…

I agree, but I’m surprised that GP said that people in the West have lower IQ because pollution is vastly superior. If proven, it would help me choose a country to emigrate, but I recall dodgy plastics in Indonesia and smog in China, and I’m quite sure the less-tertiary countries have more pollutants.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#54

Post by LanceH »

vaidhy wrote: post #32
LanceH wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sanctions is not feeding them -- but doing nothing to stop them from feeding themselves. Certainly not stopping them from behaving nicely and getting to interact again. War is shooting people dead. There is a stark difference.

I would prefer to be shot than be starved to death. And what does behaving nicely mean, in practice? Change the elected government? Let go of their sovereignty? You are forcing countries to go back to stone age because you have a bigger wallet and a bigger army. Economic sanctions are the rich countries way of being a bully. We are all interconnected and cutting one country's access and resources is worse than attack…

> And what does behaving nicely mean, in practice?

Topically, it means not rolling tanks into another country and killing their people. Not sure why this is difficult to understand. Russia isn't reacting to sanctions. Sanctions are a reaction to war.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#55

Post by coldtea »

InsaneOstrich wrote: post #42
coldtea wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ensuring Ukraine's neutrality instead of sacrificing it as a pawn?

Ukraine is a democracy. It's not up to us or anyone else to "ensure their neutrality" if that's not what they want. We already refused to allow them into NATO under the guise of "ensuring their neutrality" and look how that turned out.

>Ukraine is a democracy.

It's a country similarly corrupt as Russia (oligarch wise), that's used as a puppet to pressure it. They have big foreign involvement, and even had their democratically elected leader toppled just 8 years ago. Nominal democracy and huge foreign influence are not contradictory, rather they are the norm.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#56

Post by oceanplexian »

InsaneOstrich wrote: post #24
erdos4d wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Economic sanctions are an act of war. This 100%. I'm seriously wondering how all these people supporting heavy sanctions will feel when Putin realizes he can't win via conventional means and his economy is destroyed, so he starts nuking things.

What's the alternative? Doing nothing while Russia invades countries in Eastern Europe one after the other?

Russia, France, Germany, and Ukraine held Normandy peace talks back in January, some of the things the Russians asked for (paraphrased): Russian-speaking regions of Donetsk and Luhansk would be granted special status within Ukraine, security guarantees from NATO, a limitation of the number of troops stationed in Eastern Ukraine, and Ukraine restoring the fresh water supply that they cut off from Crimea. Conceding on some of those things might have been a good alternative to war.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#57

Post by coldtea »

egman_ekki wrote: post #45
coldtea wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ensuring Ukraine's neutrality instead of sacrificing it as a pawn?

How do you ensure Ukraine's neutrality as another country? If they pick your side, you start with sanctions against them?

Doing the opposite of how you ensure their non-neutrality as another country.

Don't use them as pawns against Russia, don't get them into NATO, and have Russia sign and respect that - and ensure their borders from Russia and everybody else, fighting for them if necessary (not merely with hypocritical sanctions and condemnations after you've sacrificed them).

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#58

Post by paulryanrogers »

oceanplexian wrote: post #48
qiskit wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Economic sanctions are an act of war. Just like blockading a port is an act of war. War doesn't necessarily mean killing human beings. You could bomb an empty munitions factory and it would be an act of war. Economic sanctions is the rich nations' weapon. It's a weapon that only a wealthy nation can wield. It's why there is so much support for it amongst rich nations. Certainly if anyone destabilized the american…

I think we are all slinging mud over the same reason, but money is only a part of it, it's really about geopolitical domination. The EU wants to dominate the cultural and political landscape in Eastern Europe. The West have their ideals of human rights, democracy, climate change, migration, etc. Russia has different views. Even if Ukraine were to become a part of the EU and NATO, all that happens is the problem is po…

> Even if Ukraine were to become a part of the EU and NATO, all that happens is the problem is postponed. At some point the West will impose sanctions on Russia anyway, regardless of an invasion, because Russia is an obstacle to Globalization.

Yet Russia hasn't just been self isolating. It has demonstrated a thirst for influence outside its borders. And has been behaving much like the USSR before it, just with less success and the appearance of some democratic process like elections.

EU and NATO countries are trying to strike a different balance between nation sovereignty and economic power.

At one point Putin apparently wanted to join NATO. Though I doubt because of shared values or mutual defense against aggression.

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#59

Post by paulryanrogers »

pmorici wrote: post #44
syntaxing wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure if that’s a fair cause and effect statement though. Most sanctions were placed to pressure the opposite side without going to war and arguably prevent physical conflict. Hard to say the hypothetical result, but the timeline would of been, no sanctions and go to war anyway or push for sanctions and hope it’s enough to scare the opposite party but if it fails, you go to war anyway

The point is one shouldn’t be so naive that you fool yourself into thinking that the range of possible responses to sanctions doesn’t include war. Analogies of sanctions being like giving the school yard bully the cold shoulder seem like just such a naive interpretation given how they have played out historically. I’m not saying they can’t work or that they shouldn’t be used just to be aware of the full range of poss…

There is also the other side to consider. By not boycotting or sanctioning an aggressor you're supporting their efforts by supplying material or funds through trade.

When a government has a proven record of bullying or annexing their neighbors I think boycotting is the least one can do. And collective sanctions among allies is a reasonable next step where diplomacy fails.

In the case of Russia sanctions weren't even enough to stop them after they annexed Crimea. No one wants to continuously cave into a bully then pretend it's "peace in our time".

Re: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War

#60

Post by paulryanrogers »

coldtea wrote: post #26
anikan_vader wrote: post #7

Surely this will be an interesting event, but the title alone seems to compare economic sanctions with war, unfairly in my opinion. From a schoolyard perspective, economic sanctions are like giving a peer the silent treatment. It hurts you both, but it's your right not to interact with someone if you find them sufficiently unpleasant. War is like committing homicide against that peer during recess. In other words, it…

> Surely this will be an interesting event, but the title alone seems to compare economic sanctions with war, unfairly in my opinion. Well, some sanctions had more casualties than some wars.

An important distinction is that a sanctioned country can change their own behavior to end the suffering. (I.e. retreat to the previous borders or stop the genocide.) And without having to deal with complications like foreign armies killing and capturing.

War usually involves another country directly causing harm and suffering to an aggressor. To escape the aggressor often must capitulate completely.

Post reply on HN