Hacker News Reader

Comment by qualifiedai | Hacker News Reader

This is very stupid. Those in Belarus who can make a living via AppStore are independent from Belarus government or state owned companies for their livelihood. Also they are typically younger and liberal minded.

Now the West has taken their livelihood from them, forcing them to depend more and work for Belarus state. Same stupid policy as with Crimea.

View on HN

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If they maintain ties it’s profiting from authoritarianism. If they cut ties it’s heartless.

We’re seeing a return to Cold War dynamics, with a schism between China, Russia, Iran and their satellites; and NATO, Japan, Australia and their satellites. It’s fair to assume that our lives will either involve massive wars or economic decoupling. To the extent we’re picking between worst options, the latter will do.

After MAD, Globalism is the best thing which happened for world peace.

If we see economic decoupling the wars will be much more likely.

Imagine if us oligarchs split into 2 factions and had a disagreement. Maybe 1 faction decided to go join Russia or Ukraine, secretly or not so secretly. I imagine real wars and real economic decoupling are both proxy fights between oligarchs. But it’s a necessary evil, because it keeps the oligarchs honest and limits their power.

I don't think we're seeing a return to cold war dynamics at all. There's no clear lines. You can see it in the French and German reaction to Russia right now that has very little in common with the US, the reluctance of Japanese firms to actually move out of China at all. Even the US went ahead and fast-tracked a trade-deal with China in 2019, don't remember that with the Soviet Union.

Two things are massively different compared to the cold war. One is that there's no ideological line between communism and capitalism, secondly there's no primacy of the state. Private actors carry significant weight and they have different interests.

The US signed trade agreements with the Soviet Union in 1935 and in 1972. The Soviet Union and the United States granted each other most favored nation status. Many other western countries signed trade agreements with the Soviet Union which included most favored nation status.

That one post-war trade agreement largely came down to Armand Hammer, a petroleum magnate having favourable personal relationships towards the Soviet Union. Overall trade between the Soviet Union and the US never exceeded 1% of the American GDP during the 70s and 80s and the countries where effectively decoupled. Obviously they weren't in any relationship one could legitimately call 'most favored' (which is a purely diplomatic term) given that we call the period the cold war for a reason.

The relationship with China today is entirely different. The countries are extensively linked, with China being America's largest single trade partner outside of North America. 20% of American imports today come out of China alone.

The statement by the original commenter was that a trade agreement was made between the US and China and he couldn't remember that happening with the Soviet Union during the cold war. It did in fact happen. Whether significant trade actually took place is not the point.

> You can see it in the French and German reaction to Russia right now that has very little in common with the US

That's because France and Germany are very dependent on Russia for energy, especially during the winter to heat homes, so they're playing the good cop. The UK isn't so, and is actually sending arms to Ukraine.

That is the case with most US/Europe sanctions. They target ordinary people more than the super rich. Iran would be an example :).

Now the West has taken their livelihood from them

That's the whole point, make the country poor.

That just unites more people around the dictator because now he is the one “feeding” them and they can’t make it without him.

Or a rebellion starts eventually, which is one of the objectives of these sanctions.

This approach worked fabulously in North Korea, Iran, Cuba.

Meantime, people close to Belarus gov have no problem buying real estate on London, Florida and California.

I think it was Samuel Huntington who said: "Development first, democracy later". Sanctions are the direct opposite of that.

Rebellion never happens because of sanctions. People who are too busy fighting for survival have zero interest in politics. That's why North Korea is still communist.

If you are looking for an example of the opposite: "Solidarity" movement in communist Poland happened in 1980, after a decade of relative prosperity, which fueled people's ambitions for better lives.

> I think it was Samuel Huntington who said: "Development first, democracy later".

Without commenting on the sanctions approach. This opposite approach has clearly not worked for China either.

[Maybe there isn't a magic democracy wand, alas?]

Maybe we just shouldn't try forcing political systems onto other countries?

Not yet anyway. Most Chinese are still very poor

I believe it was Xi Jinping who said "Development first, fuck off with your democracy later. But thanks for the IP".

It worked so well in Cuba, after all.

At this point I think it's safe to say that rebellion isn't even an objective of sanctions. Nobody anywhere in the world views that as a plausible outcome.

Sanctions leading to a regime change are exceedingly rare.

They might have helped to end the apartheid in South Africa. Other than that, zero successes.

Milosevic.

Serbia was heavily bombed in 1999. Regimes do regularly, though not always, collapse after military defeats. No one wants to be ruled by a loser.

You're right, the war was a major reason. But economic sanctions played a part too, by not allowing the dictatorship to continue being a menace to its neighbours and recover economically. No one wants to be ruled by an economic loser, and kicking the bum out hurts your ego a lot less when the reasons are economic, not a touchy subject like losing a war. After all, foreign policy wise most Serbians enthusiastically supported Milosevic.

> kicking the bum out hurts your ego a lot less when the reasons are economic, not a touchy subject like losing a war.

If you lost the war, it's generally not you kicking the bum out. The winners will handle it for you.

Sanctions from 1992-1995. were far heavier than one that existed in 1999. and 2000. and economy was in better shape in 2000. Yet he lost elections in 2000. while he easily won earlier elections (easily as in he stole some votes but his party would won majority anyway).

What was different after 1999 was big US effort for regime change - not just financing opposition and media (they did that before too) but forcing opposition to unite behind a single candidate and, most importantly, making deals with parts of regime to get rid of Milosevic. They were promised not to be touched after the change so most if them switched sides - parts of police, military and paramilitary forces along with influential people who made their fortune during the war.

Sanctions royally fucked ordinary people, but Milosevic was safe until his support infrastructure wasn't dismantled (brought).

Ah, the law of unintended consequences...

Or causes a brain drain.

Or it causes a brain drain. That would certainly be a desirable outcome with Belarus.

> Belarus has temporarily banned most of its citizens from leaving, including many foreign residency permit holders.

> There are some exceptions, such as for Belarusian civil servants on official trips and state transport staff.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57316838

Reply on news.ycombinator.com