Sanctions are a patronizing form of punishments that have hardly ever been effective and are hard to maintain over a long period of time. Take Iran, even when there is a huge international block working together against Iran, the people suffer yet the government continues but just in secret to develop their nuclear program. And if anything it spurred Iran's warlike actions in the region.
To do it because of Navalny would just be a out of a wish to punish, not out of knowledge it would actually change the situation. And is it the role of the West to dish out punishment?
Besides it would just be used by Putin to empower the internal story of the threat of the West & NATO.
Why do you think sanctions will have this stimulating effect among the Russian people when they've done the opposite in Iraq and North Korea? Practically speaking, is there something the Western world should do differently this time around? I'm keen to hear the implementation details, because without them, we're actually just speaking out of bloodlust here.
These are good points, I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. That said, I think it still makes sense for western countries to sanction Russia.
Yes, sanctions are wasteful of resources, which could lead to food shortages and people dying, but that's kind of the problem with war: It kills people and wastes resources. Even without sanctions, there would be many Ukrainians (and Russians) killed, and Ukraine would not be keeping up its wheat exports. Ideally, we'd like to prevent this kind of thing from happening very often, which in practice means there needs to be some kind of deterrence against strong countries invading their weaker neighbours. Since western powers can't fight directly against Russia, as it would risk nuclear war, sanctions are one of the few tools available for deterrence. Sanctions aren't about waving a blue and yellow flag or about showing how much you care. They're about preventing similar future conflicts and hopefully giving Ukraine a better negotiating position so the war can end sooner.
Also, it seems like European and North American sanctions shouldn't be a problem for most poor countries unless they're also participating in those sanctions themselves? While sanctions make sense for rich countries, the first priority should definitely be to feed your own people. So if the government of India decides that in order to feed its people, it needs to import potash from Belarus, more power to it.
In the abstract, the argument that sanctions are unproductive can be persuasive. But, in the real world, sanctions are only part of a toolkit of economic tools for punishing nations that act aggressively. You may think it is unfair that the US-led West gets to decide when such tools are used. I'm sure there are travesties and injustices. But, in this particular case, sanctions against Crimea and against Russia in general are an alternative to a large war in Europe.
I thought the point of sanctions is to inflict enough financial damage to the Russian people in the hope that they will start to turn on Putin?
Also sanctions can be an instrument susceptible to abuses compared to nuclear weapons because it's so one-sided --- there is little point for any country to sanction the US, for example, but a total US sanction would be disastrous for most countries.
The citizens of Russia could vote out or overthrow their leader. The goal of sanctions isn't indiscriminate pain, it is to incur a cost for bad behavior and encourage people to stop it. I think cutting off technology services to a country fighting a war of aggression against its neighbor is better than most alternative methods of retaliation.
Obviously you have a much stronger opinion on that than I do, but at the very least, sanctions should deter other countries from acting in a similar fashion. For example, if — hypothetically — China is considering invading Taiwan, they will have to factor in that the Western world will stop doing business with them. If the West hadn’t put sanctions in place for Russia, that would lessen the concern for China. Maybe you think that isn’t worth it — that’s a valid personal judgement of course.
I'm not enough of a history buff to say whether sanctions are consistently successful. But I will point out that the point of (broad) sanctions isn't to win wars: it's to punish governments by punishing their people, who are then expected to pressure the government to acquiesce.
Among the targets of US sanctions in the last 50 years, contemporary Russia is somewhat unique: it has a relatively large and urbanized middle class, one that's used to the benefits of global trade and cheap European travel. Sanctions that hurt those people seem, on face value, more likely to impact Putin's decision making than e.g. sanctions on North Korean peasant farmers.
3 is an often neglected option. It is rejected primarily because politicians want to look like they are "doing something." The historical efficacy (in terms of causing change of behavior in a government) of sanctions is about 30% and that rate has been declining since the 90s. The utilitarian argument doesn't really work because the sanctions are likely to create millions of starving or near starving Russians along with causing global food and energy prices to rise which especially hurts already impoverished places like Afghanistan.
The point of sanctions is to be detrimental to average citizens (aka voters) so that they can put pressure on Putin. This suggestion has several other issues though.
This. Plus sanctions are also a deterrent, and not using them when a state goes over the line will weaken soft power in the future. So while it sucks for Russians who don't support Putin it will make the Chinese or American or whoever is next to egregiously violate what the rest of the world considers right take the threat of sanctions more seriously.
I believe the goal of sanctions like this is to make the people mad at their leaders. So you sanction Russian citizens in the hope it'll help motivate them to create change. Not sure it could work with Russia, but maybe?
You're suggesting that common Russians feeling "consequences" will change the war and I would like to disagree. They can do next to nothing, with a high stake. Most of the sanctions, especially the ones that certainly would not affect oligarchs or government personels, are purely psyops and a political gesture of the west.
It's true, and deeply unfair, that the Russian people will suffer for the mistakes of their leaders. That's always the way.
I disagree, though, that the sanctions aren't about principle, even though they certainly serve a strategic interest as well. The sanctions are the only way, short of direct war, to influence a foreign nation.
Sanctions do work, cutting off communication with the west doesn't. There 's a feeling that Russians need to be jolted off their seats. I m seeing many of them asking for alternatives for payments or incorporation elsewhere
The point of sanctions is to protect our allies by making it harder for Russia to build up more military power. The poorer they are, the fewer weapons they can build. If people get hurt that's incidental.
It's a nice thought but I don't think that this would work in any country.
Generally, the sanctions are designed to try and convince Putin that Russia cannot afford a war against Europe/NATO. They do this:
- by targeting the money of Putin and anybody in Russia with enough money to conceivably have influence over Putin (presumably, these sanctions don't hurt common people);
- by targeting directly or indirectly the financial reserves of Russia to make it hard for Russia to bankroll the army (these most certainly do hurt the common people, too).
I'm sure that there are also propaganda/counter-propaganda operations, but these are very likely to be illegal/covert, so no country is going to publicize them.
To do it because of Navalny would just be a out of a wish to punish, not out of knowledge it would actually change the situation. And is it the role of the West to dish out punishment?
Besides it would just be used by Putin to empower the internal story of the threat of the West & NATO.
reply