|
Remember how a bunch of people insisted that sanctions wouldn't result in Russian citizens starving? About that. https://twitter.com/VICE/status/1506058340903882752?s=20&t=9VMAT0xVTru_cS-yVX5bQg
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
Abner Assington posted:You're giving conservatives way too much credit when it comes to clever strategy, rather than the obvious fact that they're incredibly despicable excuses for human beings in almost every single way one can be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
Every round of sanctions in my life has been introduced with the same two-faced talk "We're only targeting the regime with precision sanctions against officials and oligarchs, of course we're not punishing ordinary people who didn't do anything wrong" *5 seconds later* "I'm pleased to announce we've crippled their economy, the regime can't hope to maintain stability for much longer, we're projecting millions starving within weeks and by god we can push that even higher"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Remember how a bunch of people insisted that sanctions wouldn't result in Russian citizens starving? About that. I was one of the people saying it would cause stuff like this. I guess we can hope if people get desperate enough they'll throw themselves at Putins government? Seems like a pretty cruel tactic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Every round of sanctions in my life has been introduced with the same two-faced talk this one was explicitly not just precision sanctions against oligarchs, so you might want to slow your roll or at least adjust its direction I'm dubious of current general sanctions against Russia. Even if we accept the "they will handicap active military operation against Ukraine", 1) does that justify the human suffering and 2) will the handicap happen fast enough to, you know, matter? Feels to me like the supply of the invasion will live or die based on what they already have, not on ongoing production and import.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
The human suffering is the whole point
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
What's the alternative to sanctions? I've always understood it as pretty much sabre rattling, then sanctions, then bombs. Is the argument just for different sanctions, skipping sanctions, or other?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
bobua posted:What's the alternative to sanctions? I've always understood it as pretty much sabre rattling, then sanctions, then bombs. Is the argument just for different sanctions, skipping sanctions, or other? If you don't care about human suffering, then yes that's your 3 options.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
The alternative is not doing sanctions. I know that basically means doing nothing, but sanctions are worse than doing nothing and produce no positive results. It's kind of like torture on a geopolitical scale, both in cruelty and effectiveness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
bobua posted:What's the alternative to sanctions? I've always understood it as pretty much sabre rattling, then sanctions, then bombs. Is the argument just for different sanctions, skipping sanctions, or other? As a general rule outside of some rare exceptions it's best to consider sanctions a form of violence. Since heck, look at what's going on in Afghanistan right now. A lot of people are gonna die as a result of those sanctions. They might not be dying from bombs or bullets but it's still going to be a lot of preventable deaths. Srice fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The alternative is not doing sanctions. I know that basically means doing nothing, but sanctions are worse than doing nothing and produce no positive results. It's kind of like torture on a geopolitical scale, both in cruelty and effectiveness. How far does that go? Still do 'nothing' if a nato ally is attacked, if the US is attacked directly? Not being difficult, genuinely curious and been away from this thread and the previous one too long to know if this has been hashed out repeatedly already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
Srice posted:As a general rule outside of some rare exceptions it's best to consider sanctions a form of violence. That doesn't really answer the question. And I get that the question is a matter of opinion and that you can definitely have the opinion that sanctions are awful without having an alternative solution, but I'm specifically asking about the alternative solutions that have been discussed, if any.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Every round of sanctions in my life has been introduced with the same two-faced talk that nbc story the other day about cuba's vaccination program going so well mentioned, as a context-free aside, how the country has problems obtaining syringes & antibiotics (and has still managed to inoculate 98 percent of its citizens). oh, word? Would you care to elaborate on how that has come about, and who's responsible for such an outcome?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
Srice posted:As a general rule outside of some rare exceptions it's best to consider sanctions a form of violence. I’m gonna be nitpicky here, but are there even any sanctions on Afghanistan? What’s happening over there seems more potentially due to the US theft of their money. Which, as far as I’m aware, is different than actual sanctions. So, unless I’m wrong, I don’t know why there’s a number of people claiming sanctions are the issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I’m gonna be nitpicky here, but are there even any sanctions on Afghanistan? What’s happening over there seems more potentially due to the US theft of their money. Which, as far as I’m aware, is different than actual sanctions. No it's sanctions OP https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/podcasts/the-daily/afghanistan-economy-taliban.html?showTranscript=1
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
bobua posted:That doesn't really answer the question. And I get that the question is a matter of opinion and that you can definitely have the opinion that sanctions are awful without having an alternative solution, but I'm specifically asking about the alternative solutions that have been discussed, if any. I don't think there really needs to be alternative solutions. If the goal is to end the war, preferably in Ukraine's favor or at least without further injury to Ukraine, then you don't need sanctions. They're a way to attack a country and hurt its citizens without having to fire a weapon and I don't really think that's necessary in this case. NATO is supporting the literal war with weapons and Ukraine's allies are also economically targeting specific important Russians and that is probably enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I don't think there really needs to be alternative solutions. If the goal is to end the war, preferably in Ukraine's favor or at least without further injury to Ukraine, then you don't need sanctions. They're a way to attack a country and hurt its citizens without having to fire a weapon and I don't really think that's necessary in this case. NATO is supporting the literal war with weapons and Ukraine's allies are also economically targeting specific important Russians and that is probably enough. I feel like sanctions are a tool that sounds good on paper, but only ever ends up harming people. The Afghanistan sanctions are just wrong and cruel, the Russian sanctions are a mix of wrong, cruel, or deemed necessary to deter further invasions despite being wrong and or cruel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:20
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:No it's sanctions OP Is there much text to that? I don’t have an NYT subscription, but from the text that’s visible to me, I don’t see anything about current sanctions. Same with a quick Google search for current sanctions
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:20
|
|
|
The Afghanistan sanctions are even worse because it's specifically aimed at the Taliban, but because they are currently in charge it's loving over all of the people in the country, and it's not like Afghanistan had any wealth or a stable government before this
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Is there much text to that? I don’t have an NYT subscription, but from the text that’s visible to me, I don’t see anything about current sanctions. Same with a quick Google search for current sanctions Another source https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/03/10/biden-sanctions-afghanistan-humanitarian-crisis/6918023001/
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/21/crypto-provides-fix-for-some-in-crisis-hit-afghanistan Some people and groups in Afghanistan have started looking at crypto as a way to get around the sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
Is doing nothing wrt russia's actions, yknow... ethical? Putting aside MAD, I think people here (and in similar places) have such great and justified mistrust of the motivations and history of america/other major powers that many would argue against going to war with Hitlers Germany (were such a thing to happen on that scale today). As a fan of a sort of steve rogers esque "do the right thing no matter the personal cost", this saddens me because who knows how many steve rogers we have waiting in the wings with no outlet for bravery and sacrifice in the name of the good that humanity can offer. Don't get me wrong, I find again and again the spectre of "a definitely bad guy/group you can fight" to be anywhere from a gross simplification to a deliberate and craven manipulation. If only the world was so simple. Yet there are plenty of good people who would do more, if they had the knowledge and leadership. This wouldn't solve Russia and Ukraine, but large scale coordinated consumer activism/boycotts combined with great political pressure may give the people of this world a hand on the levers of power. Does anybody know of some sort of index of capital & corporations that would allow for said consumer activism? It seems like it could be a powerful tool with the dsa and social media progressives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
Sanctions can only be potentially ethical if we know they will be effective and cause the state in question to do what you want them to do. Even then, it's debatable if the human suffering is worth the policy outcome. However- there is basically zero data that shows sanctions work, so the poster who likened it to torture is spot on. Not only is it wrong, it's also not effective. So yes, not torturing someone is ethically superior to torturing them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:Is doing nothing wrt russia's actions, yknow... ethical? Choosing to not apply sanctions that affect regular people and destabilize a currency does not equate to doing nothing. We are still pouring military aid into Ukraine, as well as financial aid. Russian leadership can be targeted and arrested if they ever leave Russia or it's vassal states. Their foreign assets confiscated, etc. The best thing to do would have been invest in renewable energy 20 years ago, but now would be the second best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
The ethical answer is to reject all war except class war and spread international communism, anything else is treating symptoms. But also sanctions are a really lovely way to treat the symptoms and are primarily a way to sell economic manipulation as "helping".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Choosing to not apply sanctions that affect regular people and destabilize a currency does not equate to doing nothing. We are still pouring military aid into Ukraine, as well as financial aid. In a purely cynical political light, I understand that our leaders need to look like they're being "hard on russia". What Russia is doing is loudly and tragically wrong, and some of the people I know who still bother to follow the world are drumming for no fly zones. "But Russia's nukes!" is answered with "well we have nukes too!". I know  guess that's the "war fever". Plus the fact that they're saying that even as Russia's economy is getting smashed.Yet the people I mentioned want strength to protect victims and justice. There is some positive sentiment there. It's just that being a force for good is distilled through so many bad actors and unjust unsustainable systems, we're left with political canvassing and volunteering at soup kitchens. Hope there was enough of a perspective and message here to justify what is also very much dejected venting. Gumball Gumption posted:The ethical answer is to reject all war except class war and spread international communism, anything else is treating symptoms. Sure, but surely being at war with the world as it is (which we should be!) can't necessarily prohibit any action of force. BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Another source This is not a source. This is an opinion piece. And the "source" it cites goes back to that NYT article you previously provided. Can you please actually read/look at sources for links you're posting? Kalit fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
Also if the US is actually interested in alleviating human suffering throughout the world, there are a number of things they can do that won't spark WW3, like not giving weapons to the Saudis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:In a purely cynical political light, I understand that our leaders need to look like they're being "hard on russia". What Russia is doing is loudly and tragically wrong, and some of the people I know who still bother to follow the world are drumming for no fly zones. "But Russia's nukes!" is answered with "well we have nukes too!". I know Force towards what though? I just don't have any personal goals that are improved by imposing economic sanctions that will cause damage to the average Russian because their president decided to use violence to pull Ukraine back into his sphere of influence because in 2014 my country convinced Ukraine that they would be better off under their protection and has been providing aide. It's not really an option that will lead to less suffering. Kalit posted:This is not a source. This is an opinion piece. And the "source" it cites goes back to that NYT article you previously provided. Can you please actually read/look at sources for you're posting? Dude tries to help you and you're just rude. The US is sanctioning the Taliban which means they're sanctioning Afghanistan and you could figure this out with a quick Google but here's another article. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60715707
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 01:16
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Force towards what though? I'm sure I'll never find satisfaction at the state of things in my lifetime, and I don't want to let that be an excuse for people with air in their lungs and blood in their veins to let unchecked tyranny run rampant... even if it's the world we built and sustain with our every purchase, work hour, and tax dollar. Also I live in the US and enjoy a rather historically and geographically watermark of comfort and peace while my country is part of the problem, and I help just by going to work and paying my bills. Gumball Gumption posted:Heartwarming. Do sanctions help achieve any of those goals? I'm not arguing for sanctions, just saying with the sort of understanding and critique of the world in this thread, little can be done about any injustice. Not that our worldview is the problem. BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:I'm sure I'll never find satisfaction at the state of things in my lifetime, and I don't want to let that be an excuse for people with air in their lungs and blood in their veins to let unchecked tyranny run rampant... even if it's the world we built and sustain with our every purchase, work hour, and tax dollar. Heartwarming. Do sanctions help achieve any of those goals?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 01:30
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Dude tries to help you and you're just rude. The US is sanctioning the Taliban which means they're sanctioning Afghanistan and you could figure this out with a quick Google but here's another article. I'm sorry I get annoyed by people not reading links that they post. I know, that's such a high standard for me to hold  But, sincerely, thank you, this link is more helpful. I tried doing a Google search, as I mentioned before, but must have done a worse job at it. This makes more sense, since I didn't think about US generic sanctions against "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" groups (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/topic/2396). I had mis-interpreted these claims as sanctions against the country of Afghanistan, specifically. Kalit fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:this one was explicitly not just precision sanctions against oligarchs, so you might want to slow your roll or at least adjust its direction Ha you're right, looking back the administration was open from the very beginning that they're attacking the Russian economy regardless of consequences to the people, I guess all the reassurances from the last thread that Biden would only go after the oligarchs were confabulated by goons. I assumed there had been some official support for that but no, not that I can find. I went back to their earliest statements and they're bragging about imploding the Russian currency And I guess "my entire life" wasn't accurate either even prior to this; the sanctions on Iraq in the 90s were also open and frank about the homicidal intent VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
Gumball is right about the ultimate solution being to overturn capitalism. This is yet another rich man’s war. You can’t buy or not buy your way out of that, not least because people have a much greater personal stake in having the treats that alleviate a little of the suffering when the vibes are as hosed as they are right now vs an attempt to hurt a corporate entity that is treated as an abstract itself; these efforts can only rarely ever truly/effectively change corporate behavior, because they talk about companies rather than the actual ruling class of people behind them. Boycotting Nestle will never do poo poo to Nestle, too many people depend on those treats day to day. Nationalizing Nestle is the only way to actually achieve the goals we want, because the fiction of corporations allows endless maneuvering of the people behind them, spinning off subsidiaries to do the evil stuff, rebranding, and accumulating such huge piles of wealth that any of the punishments of the fictional entity barely dent its potential to keep on doing what it’s doing. You have to take power away, because why should power respect restraints the powerless want to place on it? It’s been shown again and again that they won that one. Conscientious capitalism or whatever is a ragged comfort blanket that cannot possibly serve anyone with a shred of dignity anymore. The comfort it provides is too small and too personal to ever meaningfully alleviate the suffering that is so widely distributed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 01:51
|
|
|
The supreme court hearings seem to be going well. https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1506432284622299145 some good answers on court expansion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
selec posted:Gumball is right about the ultimate solution being to overturn capitalism. This is yet another rich man’s war. You can’t buy or not buy your way out of that, not least because people have a much greater personal stake in having the treats that alleviate a little of the suffering when the vibes are as hosed as they are right now vs an attempt to hurt a corporate entity that is treated as an abstract itself; these efforts can only rarely ever truly/effectively change corporate behavior, because they talk about companies rather than the actual ruling class of people behind them. Eh I'd argue we've never really tried to truly regulate capital in the US. Other nations manage highly regulated capital markets while also maintaining a high standard of living and social freedom. Not all of us want Communism and it is not the only answer or even the default answer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Eh I'd argue we've never really tried to truly regulate capital in the US. Other nations manage highly regulated capital markets while also maintaining a high standard of living and social freedom. It’s the only answer if you don’t want to constantly deal with capital seeking to overturn any ground you gain. It makes it a constant war for dignity which sucks a lot! Deciding you can ultimately get what you want out of capitalism doesn’t mean millions don’t still suffer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 02:06
|
|
|
selec posted:It’s the only answer if you don’t want to constantly deal with capital seeking to overturn any ground you gain. It makes it a constant war for dignity which sucks a lot! It's hardly the only answer. It also hasn't historically protected from capital's whim very well either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
selec posted:It’s the only answer if you don’t want to constantly deal with capital seeking to overturn any ground you gain. Considering the current state of communism, it seems to be a wrong answer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
 both work since it's part of the road there and maybe some people who are currently hesitant will want more. I mean it's not really that communism is a choice, it's an expected outcome.This also all started from doing the most ethical good and the most ethical good is all of us getting in a circle and singing songs. Which was all to illustrate that when you're asking about ethical choices with sanctions you're asking the wrong question, they're not. Nothing about war is ethical. They're a thing to do to get a desired outcome if the cost isn't too high. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 02:19
|
|