[flagged]
Sanctions can be painful in the short term, sure, but they're a necessary evil. They heavily disincentivize violence without the need for more violence.
War is arguably the greatest source of human suffering in history.
At least attempt to refute the article which makes multiple separate claims as to why there is a shortage.
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/28/1125525861/how-the-war-in-ukr...
Between Russia and Ukraine, they produce some vital materials including lots of fertilizer, despite making almost no money. So while we're all taking a small financial hit right now, there are odd things like this as well.
Maybe the GDP isn’t the best and only measure then.
Like how in Age of Empires you had gold as well as wood and food, if memory serves.
I don't think they should be lifted until Russia reforms. Not even when the war is over, unless accompanied with a regime change that takes serious steps to undo the imperialism.
I think it's completely reasonable to expect Russia to get the same treatment as Iran and North Korea.
The EU pushed for sanctions just as much as the US did, you just don't like the outcome.
>As to the cheap resources, I'm sorry we didn't invade Iraq, Libia, Syria to get oil for pennies.
Well, first, you need a military to be able to do that. Second, we don't get oil for pennies anymore but we're not under existential crisis as to the future of cost of living.
>The EU bought at market price from Russia, what's your point?
You built a dependence on a country you're now scared of and that manages to get by without your money and that was a strategic mistake. The US has and is making a similar mistake with China. If the China situation pops off, it'll be the same thing here (and Europe is going to feel the pain of that because it's reliant on China for cheap tchotchkes too).
As to the military I'd like to refer you to this: https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-nato-problem-defense-...
A couple of quotes:
"Opposition comes not only from the U.S., which despite Trump’s browbeating of allies to spend more, is intent on preserving a 70-year-old framework that lets Washington call the shots and put its interests first."
"Under the guise of avoiding “duplication” and demanding “complementary” capabilities, the U.S. and NATO’s political leaders continue to put up strong resistance to the EU ever developing the command-and-control capabilities that would allow it to operate outside of the alliance’s existing umbrella."
At least on the China situation we seem to agree...
The oceans keep us safe. The money we spend is to maintain hegemony.
Of course our having a navy is a good idea. I'm obviously (and I think you know this) not advocating complete disarmament. We probably don't need a navy large enough to project force to the literal other side of the world in multiple places at the same time, though. Nor a standing army large enough to invade and occupy 2+ weaker countries at the same time.
The vast majority of our military spending is about hegemony maintenance and the ability to impose our will around the world, not defending ourselves. Our oceans do in fact put us on easy mode, for simply defending ourselves—we don't need the world's strongest military to do it.
Plus the best defense is a good offense. Nukes aren't a defensive weapon and yet they're an effective deterrent.