• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sanctions Are Not a Substitute For Military Action

J

JBG

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
2,578
Reaction score
697
Location
New York City area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Sanctions seem to be a sanitary, bloodless replacement for war. And in all but very unusual cases, as useless for more than symbolic purposes. As far as most of the "sanctions" and removing Russia from the G7 those moves amounted to little more than "coordinated cries of anguish and nicely orchestrated hand-wringing" (original phrase by William Safire, a New York Times columnist, in the December 11, 1980 issue in connection with West's supine response on Russian aggression towards Poland (link to Safire article). As a response to the attack on Ukraine and the phony Crimea referendum that was Obama's phony way of showing "strength."

Real sanctions would involve disconnecting Russia and Russian officials from the Western banking system, and their ability to travel at will to countries which are pleasant. Think North Korea and Iran at the height of sanctions. The "removal" from the G-8 and nominal trade restrictions are for appearance only. Does anyone think real business happens at a G-8 meeting? Or that trade, on paper, isn't rerouted?

Sanctions are either ineffective or too effective. An example of the latter were the sanctions against Iraq. When they began to bite and people in parts of the largely-desert country were suffering, the graft-ridden “oil for food” program was created. Funds from oil sales were quickly diverted to weapons purchases and the personal enrichment of Saddam and his friends. Or Iran is another example. Iran was on the brink of collapse from sanctions. Those sanctions were loosened as the bargaining leading to the so-called “Iran deal” or more formally JCPOA commenced. And most were dropped almost entirely after the very porous JCPOA was adopted.

Sanctions, in theory, could have worked against Japan since any ship or airplane sending supplies could have been bombed by the U.S. Air Force. However, the West does not have the appetite for generating a famine, or even true chaos in countries governed by rogue regimes.

In reality, if the West is serious about an objective, sanctions are no substitute for military action. The only substitute is unplugging the offending countries from the civilized world, including the banking system, and any ability on the part of their officials to travel. This is not likely to happen.
 
We can see this with Britain. Despite Putin poisoning two people on British soil in an assassination attempt (they survived), Theresa May is still not serious about clamping down on Russian money-laundering in Britain (purchasing expensive properties). Until nations get very persuasive with sanctions, Putin will continue with his aggressive actions. A wagging finger is not going to change the behavior of Vova. In another vein, FIFA awarded Russia the 2018 World Cup playoffs which begins tomorrow.
 
War may be effective at accomplishing a particular goal but it is rarely worth it even when you win.
 
Well, it's called economic warfare and is a supplement in the warfare toolbox, not substitute for military action. If used on a state essentially takes years to bear fruit and hits mainly the poor. However, the latest sanctions aimed at Russian individuals are much more effective due to it's narrower target.

Economic warfare is an effective tool and can be wielded by the US due to its global reach and influence, without it Russia would have a much stronger economy and likely have invested even more money into it's millitary and other foreign interference activities.
 
HERA the Stars said:
Well, it's called economic warfare and is a supplement in the warfare toolbox, not substitute for military action. If used on a state essentially takes years to bear fruit and hits mainly the poor. However, the latest sanctions aimed at Russian individuals are much more effective due to it's narrower target.

Economic warfare is an effective tool and can be wielded by the US due to its global reach and influence, without it Russia would have a much stronger economy and likely have invested even more money into it's millitary and other foreign interference activities.
Click to expand...
How effective, given both their leaky nature and the political will to follow through?
 
JBG said:
Sanctions seem to be a sanitary, bloodless replacement for war. And in all but very unusual cases, as useless for more than symbolic purposes. As far as most of the "sanctions" and removing Russia from the G7 those moves amounted to little more than "coordinated cries of anguish and nicely orchestrated hand-wringing" (original phrase by William Safire, a New York Times columnist, in the December 11, 1980 issue in connection with West's supine response on Russian aggression towards Poland (link to Safire article). As a response to the attack on Ukraine and the phony Crimea referendum that was Obama's phony way of showing "strength."

Real sanctions would involve disconnecting Russia and Russian officials from the Western banking system, and their ability to travel at will to countries which are pleasant. Think North Korea and Iran at the height of sanctions. The "removal" from the G-8 and nominal trade restrictions are for appearance only. Does anyone think real business happens at a G-8 meeting? Or that trade, on paper, isn't rerouted?

Sanctions are either ineffective or too effective. An example of the latter were the sanctions against Iraq. When they began to bite and people in parts of the largely-desert country were suffering, the graft-ridden “oil for food” program was created. Funds from oil sales were quickly diverted to weapons purchases and the personal enrichment of Saddam and his friends. Or Iran is another example. Iran was on the brink of collapse from sanctions. Those sanctions were loosened as the bargaining leading to the so-called “Iran deal” or more formally JCPOA commenced. And most were dropped almost entirely after the very porous JCPOA was adopted.

Sanctions, in theory, could have worked against Japan since any ship or airplane sending supplies could have been bombed by the U.S. Air Force. However, the West does not have the appetite for generating a famine, or even true chaos in countries governed by rogue regimes.

In reality, if the West is serious about an objective, sanctions are no substitute for military action. The only substitute is unplugging the offending countries from the civilized world, including the banking system, and any ability on the part of their officials to travel. This is not likely to happen.
Click to expand...

China says no.
 
JBG said:
How effective, given both their leaky nature and the political will to follow through?
Click to expand...

Well, effectiveness depends on the level of cruelty by the dictator, (obviously why the new sanctions against Russia is aimed at individuals). Sanctions are aimed at discouraging a regime from its current path, not force it, therefore I don't think anyone has any illusions that results will follow immediately after implementation.

I think effectiveness is not so much the problem with sanctions, the biggest problem is how sanctions force the state to go to extremes for funding, such as connections with organised crime, money laundering, narco-terrorism, illegal oil trade, human trafficking etc. Therefore sanctions imo feeds organised crime and without a strong response against organised crime can be left to grow into the hydra we currently have with Hezbollah and Kim Jong Un's Chinese Triad connections.

On whether we should use sanctions, yes absolutely you should use everything you have at your disposal, but wield it wisely and understand cause and effect.
 
Rogue Valley said:
We can see this with Britain. Despite Putin poisoning two people on British soil in an assassination attempt (they survived), Theresa May is still not serious about clamping down on Russian money-laundering in Britain (purchasing expensive properties). Until nations get very persuasive with sanctions, Putin will continue with his aggressive actions. A wagging finger is not going to change the behavior of Vova. In another vein, FIFA awarded Russia the 2018 World Cup playoffs which begins tomorrow.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence whatever that Russia or Russians were involved in the Skripal case. The police still have no suspects, the UK has still produced nothing but un-substantiated conjecture.

This makes either the UK state or the CIA the likely culprits - the aim to continue the Russophobia and persuade wavering Europe to extend sanctions.

That job is now done. But sanctions on Russia won't work. Indeed, since only the US and a small group of its supplicants employ sanctions, the whole exercise is a complete charade (and Russia is no North Korea or Iraq either).

All the West is managing to do is formalise a de facto Sino-Russian alliance, and the formation of rival financial and trade systems which are eroding the dominance of the western oriented global system.

If it wants to play silly games, maybe the West should stick to bullying weak and defenceless states such as Iraq, Serbia and Libya.
 
Westphalian said:
There is no evidence whatever that Russia or Russians were involved in the Skripal case. The police still have no suspects, the UK has still produced nothing but un-substantiated conjecture.

This makes either the UK state or the CIA the likely culprits - the aim to continue the Russophobia and persuade wavering Europe to extend sanctions.

That job is now done. But sanctions on Russia won't work. Indeed, since only the US and a small group of its supplicants employ sanctions, the whole exercise is a complete charade (and Russia is no North Korea or Iraq either).

All the West is managing to do is formalise a de facto Sino-Russian alliance, and the formation of rival financial and trade systems which are eroding the dominance of the western oriented global system.

If it wants to play silly games, maybe the West should stick to bullying weak and defenceless states such as Iraq, Serbia and Libya.
Click to expand...

Some sanity in this thread at last

I wish people wouldn't just parrot this complete rubbish that goes something like " we ( in the West ) are the good guys trying to to good in a world full of baddies "

These calls for sanctions against countries that don't want to cow tow to western hegemony is pathetic. Would these same people accept this treatment if the boot were on the other foot ? I doubt it

These calls to arms knowing that you have a vastly superior military capable of pummelling a country back to the ancient period and cheering for the actions that will assure the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and displacing , possible for life , millions more on easily debunked claims of higher morality just make me sick.

The bemoaning of sanctions and a wish to just get in there , wherever there happens to be at any particular moment , and carry out the above carnage makes a complete mockery of those who arrogantly decide which " uncivilised " nations should be " unplugged from the civilised world ".

It would be funny if it wasn't so utterly catastrophic , despicable and cowardly
 
Last edited:
Rogue Valley said:
We can see this with Britain. Despite Putin poisoning two people on British soil in an assassination attempt (they survived), Theresa May is still not serious about clamping down on Russian money-laundering in Britain (purchasing expensive properties). Until nations get very persuasive with sanctions, Putin will continue with his aggressive actions. A wagging finger is not going to change the behavior of Vova. In another vein, FIFA awarded Russia the 2018 World Cup playoffs which begins tomorrow.
Click to expand...

The UK is much too addicted to Russian money.
 
HERA the Stars said:
Well, it's called economic warfare and is a supplement in the warfare toolbox, not substitute for military action. If used on a state essentially takes years to bear fruit and hits mainly the poor. However, the latest sanctions aimed at Russian individuals are much more effective due to it's narrower target.

Economic warfare is an effective tool and can be wielded by the US due to its global reach and influence, without it Russia would have a much stronger economy and likely have invested even more money into it's millitary and other foreign interference activities.
Click to expand...
why are you worried about economic war fare with Russia?
China is the global hegemon,and China seals our intellectual property by hook or by crook

How ?Made in China 2025? became the real threat in a trade war
 
HERA the Stars said:
first of all I do not recall posting I'm worried and secondly, the thread is about sanctions, therefore, China not relevant at this time, despite their intellectual property theft.
Click to expand...
concerns then,if not sanctions -tariffs if not sanctions
 
Westphalian said:
There is no evidence whatever that Russia or Russians were involved in the Skripal case. The police still have no suspects, the UK has still produced nothing but un-substantiated conjecture.

This makes either the UK state or the CIA the likely culprits - the aim to continue the Russophobia and persuade wavering Europe to extend sanctions.
Click to expand...

I smell false dichotomy....

Russia could very well have done it and the UK still have no suspects and little more than conjecture.
 
annata said:
concerns then,if not sanctions -tariffs if not sanctions
Click to expand...

What exactly is your point, discussing sanctions and Russia does not equate to lack of concerns regarding China, I'm Australian we have quite a number of problems with China in fact, probably more so than the US.
 
HERA the Stars said:
What exactly is your point, discussing sanctions and Russia does not equate to lack of concerns regarding China, I'm Australian we have quite a number of problems with China in fact, probably more so than the US.
Click to expand...
You can't have the problems the littoral states of east Asia have with China's 9 dash line.

You were rambling on about keeping Russia under the thumb of sanctions.
I was merely pointing out Russia would not be such a problem if it wasn't for NATO expansion-
despite our assurances we would not expand past German reunification..

Further; economic warfare against Russia from western sanctions only drives Putin closer to Xi.
It's counterproductive.
But you are correct in that this discussion is probably outside the scope of this thread
 
annata said:
You can't have the problems the littoral states of east Asia have with China's 9 dash line.

You were rambling on about keeping Russia under the thumb of sanctions.
I was merely pointing out Russia would not be such a problem if it wasn't for NATO expansion-
despite our assurances we would not expand past German reunification..

Further; economic warfare against Russia from western sanctions only drives Putin closer to Xi.
It's counterproductive.
But you are correct in that this discussion is probably outside the scope of this thread
Click to expand...

I believe you are the one rambling here. Much if not all of your post is completely irrelevant to the thread, therefore I can only ascertain that you are merely lookng for an argument, without actually having any basis for one.

regarding
about keeping Russia under the thumb of sanctions.
Click to expand...
is that not the goal of warfare... to dominate?

btw Xi and Putin are already close, sanctions will make no difference to their relationship
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom