Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmyeet | Hacker News Reader

Despite the sanitized name, "economic sanctions" are violence and collective punishment. Average Russians will be (and already are) take the brunt of this as their savings are destroyed by inflation and/or seized (the Russian "parliament" passed a law requiring all foreign currency payments and bank accounts to have 80% converted to rubles).

Lack of food security and access to basic medicines will kill people here, just like it did in Iraq and is doing in Iran and Venezuela. Speaking of Venezuela, all of a sudden the US has warmed to the idea of easing or removing Venezuelan sactions [1] since its a large oil producer.

The point is that none of these sanctions are about principle. It's purely self-serving to US strategic interests and the protection of capital (much like Shell buying discounted Russian oil [2]).

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-venezuela-discuss-...

[2]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/06/shell-defends-decision-to-bu...

View on HN

No, a "special military operation" is violence. Shooting people, bombing towns, destroying hospitals.

Refusing to trade is not violent.

> Lack of food security and access to basic medicines will kill people here

Then get out and protest, or go on strike, or paint slogans on buildings.

You may find actual violence from the Russian police, but nothing compared to what your country is forcing on Ukraine, funded by your taxes and endorsed by your inaction.

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.

> It's true, and deeply unfair, that the Russian people will suffer for the mistakes of their leaders.

One could argue that the Russian leadership is a mistake of the Russian people, so they are equally complicit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kELta9MLOzg

It's RadioFreeEurope (a US funded project), so take it with a pinch of salt, but clearly, the average Russian is complicit in this.

One could argue that the Russian leadership is a mistake of the Russian people, but that would be a silly argument, since it implies that Russians choose their leaders.

Russia hasn't had free and fair elections in decades, and possibly ever. The fact that some average Russians do, in fact, support their leadership is likely due to (a) the the complete state control of media and (b) the absence of historical precedent in Russia for legitimate public disagreement with the state.

In the West, we take some semblance of democracy, including free speech, for granted, but in Russia, democracy and free speech has never existed. Speaking out against your president is a foreign idea for any Russia who isn't well-versed in Western liberal ideals. The average Russians have no familiarity with ideas like "I support my country but not my president."

> Despite the sanitized name, "economic sanctions" are violence and collective punishment.

Ok genius, what should have the west done? Intervene in Ukraine and risk nuclear annihilation for humanity? Or simply look away and let Ukraine be plundered?

PS: These are not “sanctions” but “special economic operations”

> Ok genius, what should have the west done?

1. Not dangled NATO membership to keep Ukraine aligned with the West, something we were never going to extend for exactly the reasons as evidenced by Putin's invasion. Further, the US should've formally and explicitly announced this intent;

2. Pressure Ukraine to abide by the Minsk Agreement [1], which it never did (to be fair, Russia didn't abide either). Most notably, point (3) called to semi-autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk;

3. Push for the reinstatement of minority language rights in Ukraine, which were repealed in the wake of the 2014 revolution [2];

4. Push Ukraine to adopt a policy (perhaps going so far as adopting a constitutional amendment) of official neutrality; and

5. Reorganize the Army to be a defensive army. This is an army built for insurgency to make the cost of occupation so high as to dissuade any foreign invader from ever invading.

But despite years of intentional and possibly unintentional provocation of Moscow and a build up to th einvasion the US ruled options like excluding Ukraine from NATO as off-the-table. This was warned about prior to the invasion [3].

That's what should've happened. Now that Putin has started an unjustifiable war he cannot win (IMHO), it gets more difficult because so many people have a kneejerk reaction to "not negotiate with terrorists" (even though we do that routinely) or we don't want to "reward" Putin, the solution hasn't actually changed that much.

This will be solved diplomatically eventually because it won't be solved militarily. Even if Putin rejects such a framework and really is seeking to recreate Imperial Russia (which I personally don't believe), what have we lost by trying?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine

[3]: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/west-sleepwalking-w...

Finally people in CEE are starting to talk [1] against this colonial mindset like yours.

[1]: https://www-capital-bg.translate.goog/politika_i_ikonomika/v...

Russia didn't even held their end of the bargain for the Budapest Memorandum when they annexed Crimea. They really have nothing to complain about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

You are wrong. While I agree that these broad-based sanctions result in collateral economic damage to everyday Russian citizens, they have an important role in starving the Russian state of the resources it needs to continue to wage conventional war in the medium to long term.

> ... they have an important role ...

Your argument is that it's "justified violence", which, as you'll note, is still violence.

> ... they have an important role in starving the Russian state of the resources it needs to continue to wage conventional war in the medium to long term.

Ok, so when have sanctions ever worked? You might be able to make a case for South Africa but when else? Has it ever resulted in regime change? Or a policy change? Ever?

Russia has energy independence, natural resources and can probably feed itself. It is a nculear power so there are no military options here so we're not going to soften up Russia for invasion (as you might be able to argue for smaller countries). And it seems Russia is prepared to weather this storm for an extended period.

The invasion will fail because it was never going to succeed. I'm sure there'll be no shortage of politicans to take credit for this (sanctions included) but ultimately Russia can't extend supply lines across Ukraine, any puppet government is doomed to be overthrown immediately (people forget the USSR installed a puppet government in Kabul and had basically the same problem) and Russia just doesn't have the manpower to occupy a country of 44 million people and suppress an insurgency.

They don't need to result in regime change nor policy change. If the sanctions lead to fewer munitions produced or soldiers fed, then they have a justified benefit, even if the overall arc of the conflict is otherwise the same.

The people of Ukraine will without question suffer more from Putin's war than the Russian people will from sanctions. What's the alternative without risking an escalation to nuclear war? Cutting off the wealth and resources that fund the war machine has the nasty side-effect of hurting the Russian people, but I think they would prefer it to an irradiated wasteland or, if everyone decided not to use nukes, a NATO occupation.

People of Russia should protest it's government. It is in their hands. Not saying that it is easy but there are people dying in Ukraine because of Russia.

> Average Russians will be (and already are) take the brunt of this as their savings are destroyed by inflation and/or seized (the Russian "parliament" passed a law requiring all foreign currency payments and bank accounts to have 80% converted to rubles).

Good. The average Russian is absolutely complicit in this. The tougher you make it for the average Russian, the tougher you make it for Putin.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com