The utter stupidity of thinking that sanctions could be an effective response or deterrent to military aggression boggles my mind. Force must be countered with force, nothing less. Anyone willing to expend soldiers lives is not going to be deterred by mere economic pain (the pain they've already chose, i.e. war, is much worse!). We don't impose monetary fines on murderers, we capture them and put them in jail, or kill them in the process.
Furthermore, sanctions, by definition, hurt both parties. It is impossible to design a boycott that doesn't hurt both the buyer and the seller. The only question is: who gets hurt more? If Europe was so determined to "stand with Ukraine" then they should've put soldiers on the ground over there, not shot themselves in the foot with sanctions on goods that they need.
> We don't impose monetary fines on murderers, we capture them and put them in jail, or kill them in the process.
Depends on the murderer.... sometimes we send them more soldiers to help them in places like afghanistan.. and syria.. and iraq.. and many more.
I live in a very small eu/nato country that noone cares about, and we still do it... so my taxpayer money is used for occupying eg. syria right now, in a conflict we literally have no interest in and profit nothing from.
I think (though I'm just regurgitating something I read somewhere) that the idea behind sanctions is not to use them. If you're using them, they've failed, in a sense.
So the idea is not so much to "stand with Ukraine", it's to stand with whoever is next. The threat of sanctions should be enough to prevent the future use of force, but you have to be prepared to pull through when they're ignored for that to work.
"China is able to secure cheaper supply and resell shipments from more expensive exporters to utilities in Europe and Asia, while Russia can continue selling fuel at a profit."
"The world’s largest buyer of liquefied natural gas [China] is reselling some of its surplus LNG cargoes due to weak energy demand at home. This has provided the spot market with an ample supply that Europe has tapped, despite the higher prices."
The sanctions ensure that even those Russians who don't send their children to fight and die in Ukraine feel the effects of the war. Plus if Europe out boots on the ground the chance of nuclear escalation is increased. Sanctions are part of the package, not the whole package.
Also Europe doesnt need Russian gas. It has become reliant on it sure, but it is weaning itself off that and that gives them more power and Russia less in the long term. Your points look at the immediate short term (less than 12 months) and does little to consider beyond that timeframe.
Sanctions made things worse, but Baltic countries and Poland were leaving Russian and Belarusian gas, oil and coal for long time making it not great before Russia attacked Ukraine. Estonia left Belarusian gas a month before the attack, same as Poland banned import of Russian coal causing shortage of coal locally. The countries were doing it for decades, slowly but surely moving to others sources of fuels. The sanctions only accelerated this energy crisis that was in the making. The countries are not super relevant and I wasn't able to find many sources for it in English, but here are some:
Yeah, if Polish troops entered, with high likelihood Belarus would as well. At that point it was Putins dream to escalate it to as many countries as possible.
Belarus is rather unimportant. They are 10 million country with GDP per capita lower than Russia, spending little bit more than 1% of GDP on their army. Belarusian army has also zero combat experience. They have no reason whatsoever to die in Putin's war. No glory, no territory that they want, no hatered of Ukrainians. There were soldiers openly calling for desertion which was rather impressive at least for me. It's possible that Lukashenko was actively trying to join the conflict, but the army told him no.
Poland was offering something of the form of peacekeeping mission and Zelensky was afraid that it could lead to freezing of the conflict based on his own reporting in an interview with Meduza. Ukrainians wanted to go on counteroffensive from the beginning.
This comment is not going to age well. Russian positions in Kherson and Kharkiv are collapsing like dominoes. The price that Russia is receiving for their oil due to sanctions is approaching their cost of production. Most Russian natural gas production is being flared off rather than being sold. European natural gas storage tanks are 80-95% full. 6 new LNG terminals are coming online in December. Rather than 40% less gas this winter, Europe will have 15% less gas.
Everybody who had a part to play in Russian defeat is going to be patting themselves on the back. Sanctions may have had only a small part in that, but it was a part, and anybody complaining about sanctions is going to be on the wrong side of history.
These sound like nice words on paper, but how do you go to war with a nuclear power without triggering Armageddon? It’s a serious question. MAD is absolutely still a thing and nukes are the best protector of sovereignty ever devised.
> What should we do if Russia attacks Finland tomorrow?
I'm not saying this is what we should do but it's what will happen probably: Freeze Nato accession, send guns, helmets etc. Basically whatever happened to Ukraine.
Utter rubbish. If you want to send kids to war, do it with your own.
Ukraine is neither in NATO, nor the EU. The best course of action is supporting it while it frees itself with its own means, which is what is happening.
So support it with weapons and whatever you want. But don't commit economic suicide in the meantime. Then you won't be able to support ukraine over the long run anyway.
What economic suicide ? It's not exactly a balanced struggle. It's painful for Europeans, but it's deadly for Russia. You can't bankroll Ukraine's up-scaling and fuel Russia's economy at the same time anyway, it doesn't make sense.
How do you do that with 40% less gas in 1 year? You can't, because you will have rioting in the street, you will have people literally freezing to death, and no green politician will ever get elected again.
Oh, and btw, what's the answer now to this gas shortage? Burning more coal and firewood. So your proposed vision is doubly going in the wrong direction.
This isn't like switching from windows to linux. It takes years, and people actually die in the meantime if you get it wrong.
It's not 40% less gas. Europe managed to mostly fill their storage tanks over the summer, and Germany has 6 LNG terminals coming online in December. So it's going to be only 15% less gas. So no riots, no freezing to death.
The utter stupidity of thinking that (hey, this is your line, I'm just repeating it) NATO could put soldiers into Ukraine without starting a thermonuclear global holocaust in the form of WW3.
I would go so far as to suggest that NATO has done 110% of what they can against Russia. Unlimited money for Ukraine, unlimited supplies for Ukraine, unlimited training for Ukraine, and even now basically unlimited intelligence! Think of the HIMARS! The Karkhiv offensive is Ukraine's 'first truly western' attack, complete with a southern feint, built entirely on western intelligence and strategy. And as a result, Ukraine is routing the Russian military who are in drop-everything-and-run mode in half of Ukraine. Is that not a success??
Europe/US westernized/NATOized the Ukrainian military in about 6 months flat and spared no expense in the process.
Short of starting a nuclear world war 3, it's hard to imagine doing more.
NATO intervention would not trigger WW3. Nobody is interested in invading Ukraine, besides Russia.
Also, Russia is capable to start a thermonuclear global holocaust at any point. They could literally say tomorrow - either you give us Warsaw Pact / Russian Empire territories or we start a thermonuclear global holocaust. What then?
But Ukrainians are not asking for military intervention. They are asking for stuff like ATACMS.
Lol I am going to describe your reply as Russian propaganda for a number of reasons:
1) You "" quoted "support" as a way to diminish it, even though the Western support has clearly been absolutely instrumental in every possible way to the Ukrainian resistance. To deny this is either ignorance or malfeasance. Without western "support" Kyiv would have fallen in the first weeks. Instead, Ukrainians are fully routing the Russians who are in mass retreat. Some "support"!!
2) American lend-lease is a way to reduce domestic red tape and expedite transfers of military equipment. It's a formality and the US is not some creditor hounding nations. In fact, some nations never repaid the WW2 debts at all and no one cares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Repayment Your characterization of it is... bizarre and weird... unless you're pushing agitprop. If the Ukrainian people make some token tiny payment 50 years from now as a commemoration of this beautiful new brotherhood, it will be a special moment. But if it never comes, no one will care.
3) American lend-lease is SEPARATE from the monetary assistance -- the $15 billion dollars the US has given to Ukraine since the war began is not a lend-lease debt. And American lend-lease obviously doesn't cover things like the MASSIVE Polish contributions. To lump all of Western "support" into "lend-lease", when in reality it's not, again is either ignorance or malfeasance.
Lol a race to the bottom as usual with someone who is hooked on western main stream media e.g: "Russians are in mass retreat" - this is comical. People like you see no nuance, I am against the war in the first instance. A more realistic understanding of geopolitics could and should have avoided this war but that day has long since passed.
Yes i am diminishing the "support" provided by the west, as op mentioned if the west was so determined to stand with Ukraine then they should be putting soldiers on the ground. People like you couldn't careless, your "support" will just add fuel to the fire of an already burning Ukraine.
I'll go further, the wests support is actually tantamount to warmongering (but thats par for the course).
> Lol a race to the bottom as usual with someone who is hooked on western main stream media e.g: "Russians are in mass retreat" - this is comical
Lol the Kremlin yesterday posted their daily maps which showed a full retreat from the NE region to Russian borders, and social media is full of videos in NE Ukraine of abandoned gear, tanks, artillery, stockpiles, etc.
The Kremlin amusingly calls it a "a planned withdrawal" but even Russian commentators are struggling with the absurdity of the latest spin, because they have front-lines Russian bloggers attached who are filming the abandonment of heavy equipment, supplies and even small arms. How funny that you accuse me of western-MSM when even domestic Russian media has shown it.
Bless your sweet little heart, I know, it's really hard to maintain the Russian propaganda in places where the Kremlin can't murder people who disagree.
> I'll go further, the wests support is actually tantamount to warmongering (but thats par for the course).
And there it is. The 1984 Doublespeak moment that the Russian propaganda thrives on.
Defense is Warmongering. Helping is hurting. How dare those dastardly westerners allow Ukraine to freely associate with them! The Ukranian people are the property of Russia and should be thrilled to be "de-nazified"! The proper ethical decision is to simply give in during Russia's "de-nazification" genocide campaign!
I'll go further: your defense of the horrific Russian genocide campaign by attempting to blame the West for it is an act of complete moral cowardice and a textbook example of how propaganda leads people to support genocide.
Do Ukraine and the West have a course of action in case of a total energy blackout in Ukraine right before the winter [1]? It seems to me that the local success in Kharkiv is not possible to expand onto other regions without significant army loss, because the adversary is energy-independent and is able to continue indefinitely as long as they don't lose their military or as long as their losses are xN fewer than Ukraine's. How much military did Ukraine lose to achieve success in Kharkiv region?
>Do Ukraine and the West have a course of action in case of a total energy blackout in Ukraine right before the winter [1]?
While Russia's attacks on Ukraine's power and heating infrastructure are vile and evil and designed to hurt civilians, I do believe that the West has many plans to help the people of Ukraine who are displaced and at-risk due to Russia's warcrimes.
This also includes the reality that the Russian's are attempting to destroy nuclear facilities to create a massive regional fallout event, another breathtakingly evil war crime.
> It seems to me that the local success in Kharkiv is not possible to expand onto other regions without significant army loss, because the adversary is energy-independent and is able to continue indefinitely as long as their army doesn't lose its military or as long as their losses a xN fewer than Ukraine's.
This doesn't make any sense. Russia is not "energy-independent", quite contrary, they require supply lines for fuel to keep the vehicles moving just like everyone else. The Russian supply lines have been notoriously bad this war, which is arguably the #1 reason for the poor Russian performance. (Although American intelligence tracks all Russian supply movement in Ukraine, and American HIMARS can hit any target in Ukraine, so the Ukrainians have viciously destroyed Russian supply infrastructure from long range, forcing Russians to keep supplies far from the front).
Ukraine has just dealt a massive blow to the Russian resupply lines by taking major train hubs that the Russians, until 3 days ago, were using to resupply forces across Ukraine.
> How much military did Ukraine lose to achieve success in Kharkiv region?
Considered that there was very little reports of Russian resistance (they were in full withdrawal and not mounting any kind of stand), reports from both Ukraine and Russia show that losses over the past 3 days have been minimal for both sides.
> While Russia's attacks on Ukraine's power and heating infrastructure are vile and evil and designed to hurt civilians, I do believe that the West has many plans to help the people of Ukraine who are displaced and at-risk due to Russia's warcrimes.
What help would it be in case of a blackout? Energy prices in Europe are soaring at the moment and I don't see a clear strategy how these infrastructure destructions could be mitigated and replaced by european nations on a timely manner, that is crucial for civilians' safety in major urban areas. People in rural areas could probably fallback to sustaining their households by burning logs and coal, but the city dwellers?
Food and medical supplies, fuel for non-electric heating, etc. We'll help the Ukrainians survive. The people of Europe are strong and will endure.
Yes, Russia will be able to enact a lot of pain of Europe through natural gas, but the reality is that Europe is fully capable of transitioning away from Russia, while Russia has absolutely zero plan for their economy after losing their biggest export and biggest customer.
Honestly, the oligarchs, the Russian generals, the Russian people, when they realize that their main source of money is being replaced permanently it's not hard to imagine regime change leading to the end of the invasion and re-opening of supplies. Putin might not care, but his people do. This is how out of control dictators fail... they cut off their nose to spite their face.
Lol social media is full of videos? well thats me convinced. Even if that were the case it doesn't even matter, Putin cannot and will not loose this war.
I see no need to respond to your hysterical misrepresentation of my point. Holding an opinion on an issue that is not yours does not mean i immediately support the exact opposite. Again, no nuance with you at all. Again, I am against the war. Putins resolve is far stronger than the wests and whether you like it or not Putin is winning the war.
>Lol social media is full of videos? well thats me convinced. Even if that were the case it doesn't even matter, Putin cannot and will not loose this war.
More denial of real evidence. I love how casually people simply discard real video evidence that goes against their propaganda beliefs. What about the Kremlin's official maps? I notice you did not have any opinion when I quoted the Kremlin. Hmm!
Putin can and will lose this war, and it will cost him his position and his country.
> I see no need to respond to your hysterical misrepresentation of my point
Fascinating how when I use the exact same debate tactic as you, suddenly you feel the need to pretend to be above it (despite doing the same thing multiple times in a chain we can all read). I love the "golden rule mirror" because it exposes the hypocrisy of bad actors online so effortlessly.
> Again, no nuance with you at all
And I would charge that you have no evidence. You exist in a world of stories and propaganda and your only skills are "denying video evidence" and "spinning stories the opposite".
Also, the person who says "putin cannot and will not lose" is saying someone else has no nuance? This is rank hypocrisy and a bad joke.
> Putins resolve is far stronger than the wests and whether you like it or not Putin is winning the war.
The genocide of the Ukranian existence will not succeed, no matter how much Na*i Putin and his supporters like you want it to be. The Russian genocide will fail.
Why? The entire domestic predicate of the war is non-existence. 50% of Russians do not follow the war and don't care. Putin plays on ferris wheels while his army crumbles in mass retreat.
The only way Putin can win is through a full scale draft and war-time mobilization of the Russian economy, which he cannot do.
We are watching the end of Putin's Russia in real time. I personally believe that the fallout from this massive blunder will be the breakup of Russian colonization across Asia, and countries like China will be growing.
Putting NATO soldiers on the ground is equivalent to declaring WW3, few are willing to do that.
Therefore, Ukraine's fate is sealed and the outcome is dictated by Russia's desires.
The open question is how long it will take and at what cost, to Ukraine, its allies and Russia. And it seems that there are vested interests in prolonging the conflict as much as possible.
> Therefore, Ukraine's fate is sealed and the outcome is dictated by Russia's desires.
That is very far from the truth - please check the recent events. It is possible to fight against Russia, and it is in the best interest of the Europe and the collective west to do so.
For multiple decades Russia was using energy as a way to corrupt EU.
It was never only about Ukraine - occupation of Ukraine was always the first step. Baltic countries and Poland understand that very well, please listen to them. If Ukraine falls, Russia will invade Europe in a decade with Ukrainian military on its side.
Europe need to remove its dependence on the Russian gas completely for its own safety. Inflation is a very small price to pay compared to the alternative.
> That is very far from the truth - please check the recent events
You are forgetting or ignoring Russia's bigger guns. If Russia wanted to use NATO methods, it would be over in one day with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.
> For multiple decades Russia was using energy as a way to corrupt EU.
"Interesting" narrative.
> If Ukraine falls, Russia will invade Europe in a decade with Ukrainian military on its side.
If Russia wanted to attack NATO and start WW3, it would already have done so. Why would it need to attack Ukraine first?
Please try to think logically.
> Europe need to remove its dependence on the Russian gas completely for its own safety.
The same as above applies. If Russia wanted to conquer Europe as you seem to believe, independence from Russia's gas isn't going to help in any way to prevent that.
Carpet bombing? Burning cities with napalm? Using depleted uranium? Burning children with Phosphorus? Planting mines for civilians? Supporting terrorist organizations that bombs people, or even directly bombing people directly? Starving thousands of hundreds of people and openly admitting doing that...
Do you need more?
Only it's difficult to actually use them without getting getting preventative strike yourself. NATO had tactical nukes as well, they only declared it after ruZZkies threatened to use it.
Russia can threaten with nuclear holocaust at any time for whatever reason.
They could say tomorrow: give up all land that belonged at some point to Russian Empire, Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact or we will start nuclear holocaust. They could even demand Alaska. Then what? We give in? No!
If russia could conquer ukraine by wanting it harder, I think they’d have tried that? Russia has stalled and began losing ground because their army isn’t very good, not because of some detail of russia’s desires
They haven't tried that with all means available to them, and the means aren't nukes. As the recent events show, Russia could put Ukraine into a total energy blackout [1][2] if they decided to pursuit this strategy of waging the war. This would be the same strategy that was used by the US military in past conflicts [3], and it implies significantly more civilian casualties in a long run.
> You're assuming that money and power matters less to Putin / oligarchs than lives. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption.
My point is, they've already risked far more than just their money and power by going to war. They've also risked their lives (if there was a coup, they'd be dead), and the lives of their countrymen, and the future/standing of their whole country. Such people are not going to be deterred by sanctions they already knew were coming.
> effective response or deterrent to military aggression
(1) We shouldn't conflate current deterrent & future deterrent. Putin may be all in already, but you can signal to a future autocrat that he'll risk the stability and safety of his rule if he follows in Putin's footsteps. Selfish autocrats don't want to die.
(2) Some targeted sanctions are actually effective. You hamper their military industry supply chain, which they need for a long war.
Furthermore, sanctions, by definition, hurt both parties. It is impossible to design a boycott that doesn't hurt both the buyer and the seller. The only question is: who gets hurt more? If Europe was so determined to "stand with Ukraine" then they should've put soldiers on the ground over there, not shot themselves in the foot with sanctions on goods that they need.