Sanctions and Strategic Bombing

Post by deepsun » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

cudgy wrote: post #79

deepsun wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, they are good policy. Speaking as one affected. Those who can move -- move out of the country (usually the most economically active people), weakening the regime ability to make weapons. Those who starve have nothing to lose, so they start fighting the regime. Revolutions never happen in well fed society.

These actions only galvanize a country further to be even more dependent on manufacturing weapons to defend themselves, become more self-sufficient, and potentially seize nearby resources from adjacent countries. The people that do leave tend to be the wealthy aristocracy with the resources to leave for their own selfish reasons.

Post by bee_rider » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 6:46 PM UTC

fuoqi wrote: post #15

bee_rider wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we'd defend them, and, if so, the US naturally wouldn't be trading with what would be our enemy. Maybe we'd do sanctions, cross our fingers, and hope that heavily entrenched Taiwan would be able to defend itself. Who knows? It is the mystery of strategic ambiguity. They've been, while maybe not getting along, getting by for the last couple decades. So, hopefully we'll never find out what exactly the plan is. Lu…

Neither Taiwan, nor Ukraine are about economic value. It's about "historic justice" and protecting vital long-term national interests as seen by rulers of China and Russia respectively (e.g. in the Chinese case the latter is about breaking the first island chain). The economic aspect certainly plays a major limiting role, but it has limits as we can see today with Russia.

Post by maxst » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 9:02 PM UTC

throwawayffffas wrote: post #72

jmyeet wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three reasons: 1. They're highly ineffective in that they've almost never led to regime change; 2. "Economic sanctions" is a euphemism. They are violence that disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. The article correct likens them to strategic bombing; and 3. They're a form of collective punishment. In many circumstances this constitutes a war crime. Let me give you an example of (3). Imagine there are a spat…

> 1. They're highly ineffective in that they've almost never led to regime change; The inability of the Soviet Regime to freely trade with the west greatly contributed to it's demise, so sanctions have been proven to contribute to regime change, for a counter example see China or Vietnam, they opened their markets and their Regimes are very much still in power. Additionally the aim of these sanctions is not regime ch…

Post by ikrenji » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 8:31 AM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #70

ikrenji wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one could say it was in the vital long-term national interest of russia NOT to invade ukraine. taiwan / ukraine is just megalomania of a few men

Are you kidding? What about all the natural resources of Ukraine? And huge arable land? If Russia managed to control Ukraine, even at terrible but temporary cost in 100 years Russia would be much better off with Ukraine than without. It would make Russia even more serious player on so many markets. They never drew their economic power from people. They could exterminate all Ukrainians and still come on top economical…