[pabs3]

Isolation hasn't helped in the case of North Korea, so I would not be surprised if it doesn't help in the case of Russia.

[shock-value]

The threat that North Korea poses to the rest of the world has also been minimized partly as a result of its isolation (whether self-imposed or otherwise). To the extent that the Russian economy deteriorates through isolation, its reduced ability to wage conventional war is a benefit in and of itself.

[pabs3]

Agreed, but North Korea's isolation hasn't helped topple the regime nor improve the lives of the people living there.

[ovao]

While probably true, the current goal is to help the people of Ukraine. Helping the Russian people may be a good goal once this job’s complete (although I’m not sure what the current overall Russian sentiment is toward the situation).

[blagie]

Each situation is different.

I wouldn't support 75 years of isolation in Russia, but a country in free fall might lead to regime change in the not-too-distant-future. I want Putin out. I can see scenarios by which he's out in weeks, months, or a few years.

Even more, I want Lukashenko out before Belarus is a nuclear power. Right now, we could affect regime change without nuclear consequences. That option leaves the table soon.

[anonAndOn]

The dictator of North Korea is protected as a useful tool for China. Is Russia willing to submit to Chinese control if they have no other options?

[Al-Khwarizmi]

Or with Cuba. In fact, has it ever helped?

[risyachka]

Yeah it did help. They have a crippled economy.

[pabs3]

That only made it harder for the people there to topple the regime or have better lives.