|
|
|
|
|
|
by paulus_magnus2
1580 days ago
|
|
|
As the author correctly noted the role of Preemptive Sanctions is not as a deterrent but his argumentation agains it is based on a nof far-sighted enough analysis of the consequences of sanctions. (1) Russia is a state on brink of bancrupcy. Deplatforming Russia from SWIFT, Visa, Mastercard, stopping gas pipelines, etc etc. cutting any trade swhatsover would degrade Russia's finances enough to prevernt them from being able to finance a prolongued military offensive operations. Helicopters, tanks, planes are very expensive. (2) Russia is a also a very oligarchical state with regular people having zero power or assets. Therefore preemptive sanction should have been imposed on Russia's oligarchs in order to "motivate" them into questioning their support of Putin himself.
Again degrading his ability to order risky military missions, degrading his ability for prolongued war and perhaps the oligarchs would overthrow Putin altogether. With perhaps the war itseelf already being Putin's preemptive tactic to escape being overthrown. Forthermore, again, preemprively NATO should have supplied Ukraine with vast amounts of defensive antitank and antihelicopter weapons which wold inflict very costly damage and perhaps stop the invasion altogether - there were ideas to supply these weapons but Germany opposed. NATO could also have ordered massive militaty training in Ukraine and again did have this idea but again Germany was against. |
|
|
Proofs? AFAIK it is exact opposite: very low debt, stable source of income from resources export, large gold reserves.