How many more sanctions can the US still put on Russia? They’ve shown that western sanctions mean nothing as long as India and China are willing to do business.
Unfortunately there are too many Americans here to even get the irony of this absurd reaction the same time the US is attempting to jail a journalist for exporting defense secrets. The same US that went outside jurisdictional bounds to attempt to extradite this journalist and failed.
All the sanctions are doing is weakening the US position as a global financer. When nobody wants to buy your debt, your economy will collapse. Weaponizing holding that debt, holding assets, and doing trade in the currency accelerates alternative methods.
I understand Americans don’t get any of the news in the world, but it’s already happening and this is making it go faster. Good riddance.
Israel represents a massive foothold in the region for the US, as well as facilitating all of those new oil pipelines running through Gaza. Palestinians are probably going to be wiped off the face of the Earth in order to keep that sweet sweet oil money in American politician’s pockets.
Well, yeah. When they were integrated into the global economy that had an incentive to follow international law. Now that they’re completely separated they have no reason to bother anymore because they’re building a parallel economy. Sanctions have only made things worse because now Russia can act with impunity and there’s nothing anyone can do.
Chicken and the egg, my friend. The sanctions exist because of the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Russia invading Crimea in 2014 was them not following international law. They chose the path of chaos, not the west. You keep using the word “impunity” and I’m not sure you understand what sanctions are. Sanctions ARE the punishment.
They never followed international law, and they always acted with impunity.
They were poisoning people all over Europe and treating their own citizens like shit this whole time. Pretending free access to western markets changed their behaviour is ridiculous.
They’ve clearly gotten worse since they were completely cut out.
Anyway, sanctions are a spent weapon. That only works when they can’t find buyers and sellers outside the “rules based international order”. That ship has sailed. Sanctions are a dead strategy.
That phrase is the one the US uses constantly, I’m using it to refer to the ecosystem of the US and its allies. They’re the only people that are enforcing the sanctions.
And effect how? If the goal is to defeat Russia with sanctions that really doesn’t look likely. Obviously they’d prefer them to go away but only in the sense that they’d prefer to make more money. It’s not stopping them and it can’t.
So either they were going light on sanctions despite Russia invading and attacking a sovereign nation or they’re lying about adding sanctions just for diplomatic clout.
The idea is that you don’t dump all of your sanctions at once onto Russia, because then they have nowhere else to go but to escalation. The west wants to give Putin economic “off-ramps” so he can withdraw from Ukraine out of financial pressure rather than with violence.
interesting, thanks for the education. I also came here to shout “how are there sanctions left to give?!”, and I didn’t consider ‘rules of engagement’ would apply like that.
time passes, new opportunities present themselves. for example: a lot of investigations into where Russian oligarchs have been hiding their money have come to fruition, so seizing those funds through various channels has become an option. New ways Russians have been funneling money through backchannels have presented themselves meaning there are new channels for pursuit.
things chang over time, meaning that new sanctions may be possible. there’s a lot we, as civilians, won’t and can’t know.
That’s not exactly how sanctions work. You have legal limits on sanctions based on trade agreements. Certain actions by the other nation allow you to enact or lift sanctions and still keep the trade agreements and diplomatic ties in place.
Why should anyone care about legal obligations to Russia? A country that invades its neighbors is not operating within the realm of law and should not benefit from legal protections.
“It’s complicated” is a non-answer. How, specifically, do Western countries benefit from honoring agreements with a country that is currently threatening them with nuclear weapons?
If I owe money to a someone who murders my neighbor and then threatens to murder me and all my other neighbors, I’m never going to pay him no matter what I agreed to in the past. That goes double if the murderer is also a broke alcoholic who spends all his money on weapons.
Well for one there is a relatively stable government in charge there so containment and appeasement are good options. If we were to turn the vice too hard, their eyeballs might pop out of their head, and by that I mean the mostly stable government could collapse and the nuclear material could be lost, and by lost I mean western countries would not know exactly where it is and what it’s doing.
It’s complicated but it’s not really that complicated. I’m sure I could explain this to a five year old.
Your question is a good one, and I don’t understand why you got down voted for asking.
The thing to keep in mind, is that it’s not between us and Russia.
Russia has still working trade agreements with other countries. Countries we also have trade agreements with. Like China.
Us fucking with Russia against our established trade agreements, might looks to China like we could do the same to them if they did something up another country we didn’t agree with.
So honoring those trade agreements with Russia, protects the other agreements we have with other countries.
‘it’s complicated’ is easier to say, but the truth is that most countries don’t get along with each other. Especially those that share borders. This creates some very difficult dynamics to keep the world economy in place.
We could, of course, stop. But then the world economy would collapse.
Add comment