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's really fucking bad.
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 or european economies with sanctions, we'd definitely call it an act of war.
> From a schoolyard perspective, economic sanctions are like giving a peer the silent treatment.
No. It would be like Bezos saying if anyone does business with you, they'll be cut off from amazon. It's saying anyone who does business with russia is going to get attacked. It's why china was attacked for trading with iran when china doesn't have any economic sanctions on iran. It's saying the whole world can't do business with russia.
All wars are fundamentally economic wars. But we usually cloak it around noble virtues like 'freedom, god, democracy, 'kill nazis', etc' because it's so tacky and shameful to be attacking each other for money. Makes you no better than common criminal. A lousy thief at that. Surely, the leaders of Russia, US, NATO, etc are better than some lousy neighborhood thief. Right?
Not buying Russian oil and gas is not an act of war. Any nation has a right to decide if they want to buy a product, how much, by whom, and at what price they are willing to accept (tariffs and import tax, up to infinitive).
Calling sanctions war is like calling boycotts theft. Vegetarians are not stealing money from beef producers.
What boycotts and sanctions can be is passive aggressiveness. It harms people on a social level, and since humans are social creatures, it feel like violence. The problem of comparing violence with social violence is that not being invited to a party hurt, but it hurts in a different way from getting knifed. Our brain interpret social pain as physical phantom pain, but we must be able to distinguish between real and non-real pain. Society depend on it.
The reason blocking a port is a act of war is that the nation blocking that port is also blocking it for other nations who might be willing to trade. That is like a vegetarian going out during the night and killing off the beef productions herd of cows.
Sanctions are not independent country decisions for "not buying X". In real life they work by throwing a huge economy's and diplomatic power's might against lesser countries they don't like, and in pressuring satellite countries and global organizations a side controls to stop trading, sending supplies, even food and health kits, to other countries.
People are not exclusively operating on an independent basis. They form societies, like countries, and abide to democratic elections. People who work together occasionally achieves more than what each independently would.
Same occurs with nations. Small nations joins together to form large collection of nations, voting democratically on rules and decisions. EU is an union of European countries. If a country want to be in EU they will have to follow the decisions on the democratic process. We can eval this further and say that independent individuals can choose to form nations, and those independent nations can choose to form unions, and those unions can form global trade agreements, each however limited to the democratic process which dictate conditions, rules and laws.
Individuals can also choose to leave their countries, countries can leave unions, and unions can leave the global trade agreements. It is a choice. They do however loose the ability to achieve those things that is only possible when people work together.
Boycotts and sanctions are not the same thing. If I stop buying Coca-Cola products no one goes to jail. Sanctions create legal consequences for trade, enforced by law. They are very different.
> War doesn't necessarily mean killing human beings. You could bomb an empty munitions factory and it would be an act of war.
But it does require attacking or destroying. We aren’t engaging Russia at all. This is like calling a boycott theft.
> It's saying anyone who does business with russia is going to get attacked. It's why china was attacked for trading with iran when china doesn't have any economic sanctions on iran. It's saying the whole world can't do business with russia.
Sanctions are telling people that they must pick a side. We will not be friends with X and if you are friends with them, we will not be friends with you. China was not attacked. It was just told that it can be only with one group.
Blockading a port is only achievable by destroying vessels and people attempting to access that port. Similar to establishing a no-fly zone, it is an action that almost always involves shooting at people.
I simply don't understand the moral argument for why people and countries are required to engage in trades that produce economic surplus if they dislike the person or country with whom they are trading.
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 postponed. At some point the West will impose sanctions on Russia anyway, regardless of an invasion, because Russia is an obstacle to Globalization. I think that Putin saw the writing on the wall and that's why he made a move.
I certainly don't agree with it, I don't agree with the war, but what did the EU think was going to happen? They and the US smugly admitted to tampering with the internal affairs Ukraine over the last several decades, and and have made their designs on Eastern Europe obvious. Now that they are implementing extreme sanctions on the Russian people, it is only confirmation bias for the Russians and more reason for them to double down on the direction they are headed in.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
It is always easy to criticize. What do you think should happen? Just yield Ukraine to Putin? Did not work with Germany and Elsass-Lothringen, did not work with Russia and the Crimea, won’t work now.
What happens if you give in to a dictator’s demands isn’t that he is satisfied and stops. Instead he will realize that he got away with it, then try something bigger next time. There are countless examples of this in history.
Absent evidence to the contrary, my take on Putin's actions are that he wishes to reestablish the buffer region Russia has historically maintained around itself to absorb invaders. He controls every state near him except Ukraine, so I would let him have it and then he will have his buffer and hopefully be happy. He has nowhere else to go after that except actually attack NATO, after which there is world war, so the appeasement that is possible in this case is rather limited, it really can't go further than this.
Anyway, I get the argument that you should stand up to the bully, but this guy gives me the vibe that he's actually all-in and will (literally) lose his head if he loses this war. I think if this continues and he gets into a losing spot, he will gamble that his nuclear forces will win. I don't see any other option for him actually.
Sanctions of the kind now being imposed on Russia, and previous imposed on North Korea are the modern equivalent of a siege to starve your opponent out.
It's not just a matter of abstaining from trading with them, the US and Europe are blockading trade by third parties as well. Even the bank of China has suspended dealings with some Russian banks because doing so would incur legal penalties on them from the US. Even parts manufactured in third party countries that were made using US equipment or technology are barred from export to Russia no matter who makes them or where.
The US and Europe are construing a technical argument that, well, these are US technologies, and it's ok to block trading with them in Dollars because the US technically owns all dollars, but the effect is to coerce many third parties into unwillingly participating in the blockade. Technically no it's not really an act of war. In practice it's absolutely a direct attack on the Russian economy and if not an act of war definitely an act of explicit aggression.
I say this as someone who fully and wholeheartedly supports these sanctions and believes they are well deserved. They are the right thing to do. I wish we were doing a lot, lot more and as soon as we can stop buying their oil and gas too the better.
There is historical precedent for economic sanctions leading to war. Notability the US froze Japanese assets in the US and embargoed selling US oil to them in July 1941. Less than 5 months later the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
You aren’t wrong but you also have to consider that economic sanctions have historically been a precursor if not the friction point that caused a war.
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 possible outcomes.
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".
Except that the peer you’re giving the silent treatment provides oil, gas, and metals to every part of the world that isn’t North America.
Your point is taken, it’s not physically blowing someone up. But from the global perspective, isolating Russia with sanctions removes them from the economy in the same way bombing Moscow would, while leaving alive people who might have a chance of changing the course of the conflict.
You don’t have to kill an enemy to neutralize it. In fact it’s quicker, easier, cheaper, and more effective not to. But it is still every bit an act of war — wrecking the global economy is also “really fucking bad.”
And besides all that, if people getting blown up is what you’re looking for, it’s still early days yet. This is all far from over. And even if it stopped tomorrow, we will be dealing with the ramifications of this for years.
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.
I have no idea why this is being down-voted. This is the truth. People in western europe have no idea what it means to live under scarcity. Take Sri Lanka for e.g. - not even under sanction, but lack foreign reserves. Long blackouts, disruption of normal life since petrol (gasoline) is not always available. Eventual food shortages because fertilizer needs to be imported. Now think of another country under sanctions - even hope of better future is being crushed.
100%. Sanctions are a WMD that simply have a nice level of deniability.
We don't have to see the mass destruction and pain they cause, because it's not a direct explosion like a bomb, but the ultimate effect is much the same like you say.
Silent treatment is cutting off diplomatic ties. Sanctions is starvation of resources, potentially impacting the war effort directly but indirectly by causing civil unrest.
I agree it’s certainly not the same as direct warfare, but its definitely somewhere in the middle, and can particularly castostrophic when done in a concerted multilateral fashion (ie. North Korea).
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.
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 their allied nations. No country in the world save China can endure that for long without completely destabilizing their economy and their legal order.
And make no mistake, people will die due to these sanctions. Russia's medical system will not endure lack of trade for long, and it's likely there will be food shortages as well. This is entirely independent of whether or not it's the right thing to do. People need to understand that these actions have real human consequences, whether they agree with the cost or not.
Sanctions as enacted here are not "I'm not talking to you", they're "I will punch anyone who keeps talking to you."
Also, I guarantee you that if a country sanctioned the US in a way that actually impacted the american economy (again, probably only China could pull this off right now), the US would consider it an act of aggression. Just nationalizing American interests has been cause for American intervention before.
Yes, and because most countries in the world are smaller than the US or Russia, they will suffer because of it. Likely with people dying, either directly or indirectly. The smaller the country, the more sanctions hurt, the more it's like getting punched in the face.
Most countries in the world can't afford to be excluded from trade with the western bloc.
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.
Again, sanctions are not just "not doing trade". They are a legal framework of consequences for doing trade that apply not just to the state doing the sanctions, but also other states, and private actors in other states who do business with the sanctioning state as well. It is not a boycott. It is a punishment with real tangible negative consequences for the target country and anyone caught in the middle.
In the US' case, sanctions often also come with things like "withholding the target country's reserves held with the US central bank", which do material harm to the target country's economy.
People keep trying to frame this as "just not buying gas/oil" but the funniest thing about that is that for the most part, the sanctioning countries are still buying gas from russia. That is literally the one thing not included in these sanctions. The sanctions would probably work better if they did stop buying natural resources, but the backsplash from doing that would be immense.
Anyways, it's awfully convenient that the tools America is uniquely positioned to use to cause harm to other countries (economic sanctions, targeted drone strikes, etc) are never "cause for war."
And again, this is completely independent of whether or not it's the right thing to do. If you can't get over your cognitive dissonance long enough to recognize that sometimes the right thing to do can cause immense harm, I don't know what to tell you. You should still recognize that sanctions are not neutral acts, and they do kill people as surely as a gun does. Thinking otherwise means you're somehow still stuck in the 19th century's idea of war (and even they would probably consider a trade blockade an act of war).
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 attacking them.
> 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.
Sanctions only are painless if the other side has no economic advantages against you, or otherwise has such a small economy that refusing their goods has no effect upon you.
Russia isn’t tiny resource poor Cuba. Everyone who refuses to trade with Russia suffers real losses as they are forced to get key goods from other sources. For central and Eastern European counties this is a real issue.
Imagine the US sanctioning Mexico… yes, it would hurt Mexico’s economy, but it would also devastate the economy of the South West USA.
> In an original and persuasive analysis, Mulder shows how isolating aggressors from global commerce and finance was seen as an alternative to war that worked precisely because of the pain it imposed on the target society. From the very beginning, it was civilians who suffered the most. Nevertheless, the League of Nations embraced sanctions and established an elaborate legal and bureaucratic apparatus to enforce them. Mulder argues that instead of keeping the peace, this form of economic warfare aggravated the tensions of the 1930s, encouraging austerity and autarky and restraining smaller states but backfiring against the larger authoritarian ones, such as Italy.
I think this is an interesting point to bring up, because, especially in the West, we hold a believe that "economic" violence is not as bad as "physical" violence. It's well worth at least questioning this assumption.
I think that, in the world of nuclear powers, it is trivial to see that physical violence at war scales between nuclear powers is essentially infinitely bad.
Famine among millions of people, and general economic depression has a massive human toll. But it doesn't compare to full on nuclear war, followed by nuclear winter and Global radiation levels from fallout.
So it seems obvious to me that economic violence is the only for of violence the west can bring to bear against Russia. There is a discussion to be had on the matter of whether it should be brought to bear. Punishing the people for the actions of the elite and all that. Perhaps also a 'what does this system lead to in peace time' question, but that seems to argue 'economic sanctions are a tragedy of the commons', which means it is hard to address. At least the solution 'we just won't sanction' does not actually resolve the tragedy of the commons.
Here's the problem though: if you obliterate a country's financial system to the point that people start starving and fundamentally lack their basic needs, what incentive are you giving someone like Putin to not drop a bomb?
If people start starving en masse the way they did back during Soviet Collectivization, which saw 4-7M dead[0], what's stopping Putin from ending it all in retaliation?
(Event announcements like this aren't on topic for HN because they aren't intrinsically interesting. An article or transcript or recording of the event might well be.)
Removing the tools of trade to specifically punish a country is akin to war, I agree with the sentiment. A lot of innocent people are going to starve and die because of this decision, regardless of whether or not bombs are dropped. They don't have any other options and their already fragile and corrupt markets are crashing.
Here is one I saw wrt the Russia sanctions specifically that seems to be well-sourced and makes sense whilst being pretty terrifying for the Russian people[0].
TLDR; Russians are about to face mass shortages of basic goods at the same time their markets are crashing. This is going to cause major problems when people try to buy things like food and seed to grow more food. There's already a brain drain hitting Russia as these sanctions take effect, so the government may be forced to close the borders as well.
I expect Russia to boost assasination squads. Most companies have no access to secret service. Not only they are sitting ducks, their families too. All I can say is see mysterious and over the top deaths of public companies c-level tier. As you can see Putin shelling civilians building. But what Ukrainian news source didn't tell you is that those building have civilians taking up arms. Once you do that it is a fair gain to bomb you. American routinely did that. Ever heard of Obama bombing hospitals? Killing children? Killing goat herders that "look" like OBL? These civilians upgraded themselves to enemy combatant status. Yes, rise of sanctions as modern war tool. But so is economic civilians assasinations too.
In a joined up world, sanctions are the new non explosive weapons.
Less project fear (nukes/missiles/violence), more stand on the naughty step and no Amazon or Netflix for a month.
Russia is interesting though, because with so much land, arguably they can be self sufficient, which means only intelligence & innovation holds them back if they want to turn inwards like China did, which the Brits exploited commercially through Hong Kong.
Russia have already demonstrated intelligence and innovation during the cold war with sputnik, they also have tried and tested rocket technology which will boost the French Ariana rockets but we know that genius individuals are distributed around the planet although the health of the mother, diet during pregnancy & during the first 8years will go along way to helping a genius. But the West has pollution which is lowering IQ levels, just like Covid is lowering IQ levels as seen with the "brain fog", so I wouldnt write them off if they followed the science and wanted to go isolationist. Even North Korea has shown it can still survive albeit at a slower pace to the rest of the world, but nothing like the Nazi war effort, which goes to show how idea's can motivate groups of people.
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, its just different chemicals that still have a negative effect on the body. Look into Dieselgate to find out about those.
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.
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.
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's really fucking bad.