[chabska]

> Nobody should be expected to take that risk

I've seen this sentiment so many times from westerners. You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

Their authoritarian militaristic government that doesn't care for human rights.

If you apply the same standard to the North Korean citizens, that they should not be expected to "take that risk", they your country's sanctions are pure collective punishment with no strategic value. You just tortured people for fun.

[kelnos]

> I've seen this sentiment so many times from westerners. You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries...

"You all" is a weird way of putting it. I don't support my government levying sanctions on these countries, but I have zero power to change it.

It's funny, as the gist author points out that he doesn't support the actions of the Islamic Republic, and has no power to change it because it's minority rule by a theocratic dictatorship.

But even in the US, no one I've ever had the option to vote for (and who had even a remote chance of winning) would ever consider lifting these sanctions. So I am similarly powerless to change this situation.

I think sanctions are largely pointless if their stated goal is to get citizens to rise up and change their governments. Asking people to risk their lives (when you're not risking anything at all) is an awful thing to do, and this sort of thing isn't likely to work.

But it's probably not really that; the idea is to choke the economies of these countries so they can't do whatever Bad Thing the sanction-leviers are worried about (like developing nuclear weapons). How effective sanctions are at achieving that goal is an exercise left to the reader. And even if they are effective, there's a lot of collateral damage that hurts people who have no say in the matter.

[tuveson]

> But even in the US, no one I've ever had the option to vote for (and who had even a remote chance of winning) would ever consider lifting these sanctions. So I am similarly powerless to change this situation.

Not saying Obama’s foreign policy was perfect, but he did do the Iran nuclear deal which lifted some sanctions, and started the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Like so many other things, these were immediately undone by his successor…

[padjo]

Obama acknowledging that the US overthrew an Iranian democracy for the benefit of oil companies definitely helped and could have ushered in a new era of understanding. Sadly, America then decided to elect someone with a toddler’s understanding of history and geopolitics which destroyed all that opportunity for a generation.

[tgma]

If you are referring to the Mosadegh story, that “apology” started with Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright trying to appease the current regime in Iran. Sadly, the “apology” itself is meddling with the historical facts. The Mosadegh government was no more or no less democratic than any other Prime Minister in that era. He had prorogued the parliament and waged a war against the Constitution and tried to elevate himself over the law and depose the ruling monarch. The Soviets and their affiliates and comrades on the ground supported the move (hoping to remove him next and extend the Bolshevik revolution to the Persian Gulf,) and the US and many Iranians did not want him to succeed.

In any case facts of the story are so brazenly changed in the apology’s telling of the story that regardless of which side you are on, in and of itself is a political interference against the will of the Iranian people. Please also note that the golden era of Iranian prosperity was the decade and a half when he was removed from power by the monarch.

[YC984983427]

Proroguing in parliaments is nothing new or anti-democratic. Canada had its parliament prorogued for the first 4 months of this year yet I didn't see calls for violent US-backed regime change and political suppression like there was under the American puppet Shah. Same with deposing a monarch (getting rid of monarchy is "anti-democratic" now?).

More information on the "Iranian golden age of prosperity" you mentioned:

>During that time two monarchs — Reza Shah Pahlavi and his son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi — employed secret police, torture, and executions to stifle political dissent. The Pahlavi dynasty has sometimes been described as a "royal dictatorship",[1] or "one-man rule".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Imperial_S...

[refurb]

Trudeau was allowed by parliamentary rules to end parliament sessions for the year.

Mossadegh was not allowed to do it.

[tgma]

> Proroguing in parliaments is nothing new or anti-democratic.

He prorogued the parliament and was calling for a referendum to overthrow the monarchy against the Constitution. He was terminated by the monarch per Constitution, but he would not leave the post which resulted in uprising from both sides.

> During that time two monarchs — Reza Shah Pahlavi and his son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi — employed secret police, torture, and executions to stifle political dissent. The Pahlavi dynasty has sometimes been described as a "royal dictatorship",[1] or "one-man rule".

Yeah if you read biased and debunked media and the Mullah supporters and comrades[1] (which is the source of Wokipedia) during the Cold War era, and by the way both sides conspired to get rid of the monarch for different reasons, you might believe such propaganda. If you'd talk to the actual industrious people who experienced it, you might get a very different perspective. Double digit annual GDP growth, #1 is number of international students in the US (not per capita, absolute.) So yes, golden era, indisputably.

[1] Interestingly, we see the same Marxist-Islamist alliance has now hit the West.

[nanliu]

Long term foreign relationships cannot be built on top of four year presidential terms. Besides Israel, I'm not sure any country has continuity between recent administrations.

[inetknght]

> Long term foreign relationships cannot be built on top of four year presidential terms.

Yes indeed, I agree.

Although: long term foreign relationships certainly can be un-built on top of four year presidential terms. See: current US president and rest-of-the-world.

[baggachipz]

Not just un-built, but poisoned for generations.

[marcosdumay]

It's very rare that international relations get poisoned for generations without some ongoing work from both involved parties. Populations tend to forget things on the timeline of a decade or so.

The US can rebuild most of what they destroyed. It's gone now, and some of it they were already on the process of losing and can't get back. But no country is beyond reconstruction.

[refurb]

You’re taking public comments ways too seriously.

Relations clearly aren’t poisoned since the EU and US are still closely collaborating on several fronts such as policy towards China and Ukraine.

Don’t mistake harsh words intended for domestic voters with reality.

[dgfitz]

It takes a week to remodel a kitchen and an hour to demolish it.

[swat535]

> but I have zero power to change it.

I was under the assumption that in Western democracies, citizens have a say their government and its enacted laws.

We can't unfortunately assert the same for people of Iran since they don't live in a democracy.

[imchillyb]

Sanctions are not designed to coerce a populace into rebellion, in order to facilitate regime change.

Sanctions are designed to prevent an enemy government from profiting from our western economy. Sanctions are designed to bring hostile entities to the negotiation table. Sanctions curtail the worst behaviors of enemy nations because the sanctions deny those enemies money. Money is power. Little money = little power.

[int_19h]

For the most part, sanctions are designed to be "something" in the infamous "SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!!!1!" mantra. They rarely achieve any of the goals that you enumerate, disproportionately inconveniencing regular citizens - government actors have the means and the know-how to work around them. But mob justice demands an eye for an eye, which is to say, someone must be made to suffer - and sanctions provide a way to do that, even if the people actually suffering are rarely morally responsible.

[YC984983427]

> but I have zero power to change it.

Well, it sounds like you should rise up against your government in violent revolution, then! After all, that's what's expected of Iranian, Cuban and Venezuelan people when the West destroys their countries with sanctions. Get to it!

[lelanthran]

> I've seen this sentiment so many times from westerners. You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government

That's a total non-sequitor.

GP stated that he will personally face prison time for going against the laws of his country.

Why would anyone risk jail time for you? For your countrymen? Why don't you risk jail time for some other country?

[Seattle3503]

> You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

I think the argument is that you deprive belligerent companies from the resources they need to attack and harm others. The suffering their citizens endure is unfortunate, but why should Americans take the blame when Kim Jong Un is so obviously culpable?

[coldtea]

>with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

That's the PR justification. The real one is "to hurt the countries and make them do as we say" and "because we can".

[ajuc]

You misunderstand the goal of the sanctions.

Sanctions are there to cut off 1-2% of GDP each year from the dictatorships' economies.

Over 30 years that turns countries into harmless (to the West) backwater shitholes.

The consequences towards the local populations are just a side-effect (sometimes wanted, sometimes not).

You cannot expect people outside of your dicatorship to prioritize your well being over their own safety. It's on you to fix your country. If you won't - people will isolate you to keep their countries safe.

Can't really blame them.

[ACCount37]

This. The point is, and always was, to exert economic pressure.

Some sanctions aim at military capabilities directly - but most just aim to throw a wrench into a country's economy overall. Which does hurt the population - but it also hurts a country's capabilities, which is the goal.

If North Korea wasn't sanctioned to shit, it would have had the resources to build not dozens but hundreds of ICBMs. This is undesirable, so North Korea remains sanctioned to shit.

[jiggawatts]

This is the right answer, and it's sad to see it so far down the list.

This is the precise realpolitik of international sanctions, it's just not spoken out loud that often.

Don't believe me, some random commenter. Listen to the Professor of History and Grand Strategy at the U.S. Naval War College explain it: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B0k5ToABH7o

[cess11]

No, they're there to kill people. It's war by non-military means, and the US is waging such a war on a very large portion of the world.

There is a recent study concluding that sanctions kill half a million people per annum: <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...>

I don't know what you mean by dictatorship but I'm not exactly adverse to applying the same term to the US, it being a one-party state with the audacity of having two parties, and either way, it's by far the most hostile and violent of contemporary state powers.

[miningape]

Dress it up however you like, the fact remains that countries can choose to not provide goods and services to whomever they want for whatever reason they want.

There's absolutely no moral obligation on an individual in any country to defy these laws and risk prison time - if they want change they can petition, vote and protest.

Beyond that the West is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with us (and therefore had sanctions placed on them) - that responsibility lies solely with the people and governments of sanctioned nations. We shouldn't be forced into supporting those who seek to destroy us based on HuMAnITaRiaN grounds.

[cess11]

The word "cooperate" carries a lot of weight in your reasoning. Could you give some examples?

One could also flip your argument and consider the many decades of US narcoterrorism, regime change operations and so on and the rather long line of failed states in its wake, and draw the conclusion that we ought to actually not submit to this 'world power' regardless of whether it 'dresses itself up' to be 'cooperative' while it engages in these activities or not.

[miningape]

For example, not respecting copyright laws (China), not participating in other sanctions (India), or intentionally destroying diplomatic relations (South Africa). It could also be more serious things like declarations of war, or long standing bad relations.

> One could also flip your argument and consider the many decades of US narcoterrorism

I'd agree with you here, I'm speaking purely of diplomatic / trade related activities (i.e. tariffs, sanctions, etc.) - imo putting boots on the ground or funding insurrections are an escalation that 1. no longer respects the autonomy of a country/people 2. are equivalent to military action

There's of course still a lot of grey-zones but hopefully it clarifies my position.

> we ought to actually not submit to this 'world power'

Again I agree, WE (as private citizens) ought not to, however diplomacy and trade are careful games played between larger entities (corporations, governments, etc.). But on the flip side it also doesn't mean we have to go against everything the government does (i.e. it isn't inherently evil).

The tricky line (as in this case) is when the actions of those entities can have an effect on you (the private citizen) like jail time.

[cess11]

China is a member of WIPO, so that's mostly something the US does to trample on the UN. Why should India change its policies around sanctions and start implementing them because the US thinks they should, instead of leveraging the UN sanctions system, which India adheres to? Same thing there. The US dislikes diplomacy and international institutions that treat states as equals, and prefers overtly or covertly hostile unilateral actions.

I'm not sure what you mean by the South Africa example.

I'm also not so sure it's a tricky line. Civil disobedience is something everyone should consider as a means of political action.

[SalmoShalazar]

> The west is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with us

This US-centric mindset is so disgusting and emblematic of the narcissism of the west. The country has established itself as the most potent force for violence and economic abuse in the world.

[miningape]

You can easily take "the west" out of that sentence and replace it with any other country and it's still fair.

E.g. China sanctions a country then "China is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with them"

It's entirely the responsibility of each government to ensure the welfare of its own citizens. Anything more is purely goodwill. Anything less is treason.

You're just coping because the US/west is the predominant power.

[rangestransform]

My country should prioritize its own people first, second, third, fourth, fifth....and all other people a distant last, if at all. It sucks that the people in the US don't benefit as much as they could from being world hegemon, but that doesn't mean they would be better off if the US was in a lesser position in international relations.

[ajuc]

When alcoholic husband beats his wife so they put him in prison and the wife starves - is it the fault of the people who put the husband in prison?

Or the fault of the husband for beating his wife and the fault of the wife for staying in that relationship?

I get it - it's hard. But you cannot expect the whole world to enable your alcoholic husband/militaristic dictator.

[cess11]

Not sure what your supposed analogy is referring to but I'm all for boycott and sanctions towards the US if that's what you mean.

[1234letshaveatw]

in the analogy you would be the husband

[grafmax]

That presumes some kind of just system imprisoning the husband. In fact the US pursues its power and wealth, supporting dictatorships and undermining democracies to the degree it believes doings so benefits its special interests and geopolitical calculus. Even to the point instituting famine against children in horrific genocide which is happening today.

Yet US hegemony is collapsing. It is simply running out of the money and power necessary to be a racketeer that cynically calls itself world police.

[ajuc]

Russia invades Ukraine.

The West puts Russia in economic prison.

Russians suffer.

US is only a part of the system. Even if you remove US from the picture - EU alone would continue to sanction Russia.

[grafmax]

Sanctions against Russia only are somewhat effective with BRICS. Without the US, sanctions lose even more of their power.

[waihtis]

One would think the finger pointing should go towards the shitty governments causing trouble and pain for their own citizens, but somehow you've managed to find an angle to blame the West.

It is truly an unthankful job being the saviour of the entire world.

[vovavili]

>with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government

The justification is reduced financial capacity for war and similar atrocities.

[vFunct]

It doesn't reduce financial capacity for war. It moves the war dollars to different countries.

[junon]

"We" don't do anything. We have a very out-of-touch government at the moment. A lot of us would like things to be very, very different.

[fvgvkujdfbllo]

Iran or United States?

[junon]

Well I'm speaking as an American, but knowing quite a few Iranians and at the risk of speaking a bit too broadly for them, I'd say definitely both.

They are somewhat similar at the moment in some very unfortunate ways.

[meindnoch]

Yes.

[breppp]

So without sanctions or a military strike, how will a nuclear program will evaporate? spontaneously? Or do you think that nuclear blackmail like the NK case is something that should be accepted

[Keirmot]

Sanctions have a theoretical basis behind them. In the Western Political Philosophical Canon, leaders and elites are expected to strive for the Common Good. From that perspective, sanctions aren’t meant as “torture for fun,” (as you put it) but as a way of creating pressure so governments change their behavior without having to resort to war. They’re basically a tool to raise the cost of bad actions and make it more attractive to adjust course.

At the same time, sanctions also work in other ways: they punish governments that break international norms, they send a signal to the world about what’s considered unacceptable, and they reaffirm shared values. That’s why they’re still used despite the harsh effects on ordinary people. They aren’t a perfect solution, but in Western thinking their role is to combine pressure, deterrence and symbolism, rather than just collective punishment for its own sake.

[tsimionescu]

The poster above was pointing out that this is a double standard. You don't expect a US citizen to risk their livelihood to help an Iranian, but you then expect an Iranian citizen to risk their livelihood AND life to topple a regime that is doing things that the USA doesn't like.

So, you either take personal responsibility for enforcing sanctions yourself, or you admit that sanctions are a form of collective punishment for no reason. You can't have it both ways.

[kelnos]

I don't think that's the premise, though. The idea is that the sanctioned government will, under pressure from the sanctions, change without the need for regular citizens to start some sort of armed uprising. (Though certainly an armed uprising is a possible outcome.)

Maybe the government will do this because the sanctions hurt their people enough to the point where things are too unstable for their liking. Maybe their economy becomes so trashed that the quality of the leaders' lives is impacted too much. Etc.

I don't think anyone in the West genuinely believes that sanctions will lead to citizen uprisings and overthrown governments. At least not after decades where no such successful uprisings have taken place in long-sanctioned countries like Iran.

But it should also be pretty clear that sanctions on countries like Iran aren't causing their governments to choose to change their behavior either. But I think arguably sanctions on Russia since they invaded Ukraine have had a useful effect. While the war hasn't stopped, it's possible that sanctions have slowed down Russia's progress quite a bit.

Not sure what the alternative is, though, aside from just giving up, lifting sanctions, and letting things develop where they may.

[wartywhoa23]

>It's possible that sanctions have slowed down Russia's progress quite a bit.

They did slow down all kinds of progress in Russia except the progress towards the full blown fascism and the progress of the military complex at the expence of its citizens

[dh2022]

I think Western leaders are clear headed enough to understand that sanctions do not cause people to raise against their leaders. This has been known since bombing Germany and Japan in WWII (a different, more violent kind of sanctions). However sanctions weaken the adversary technologically, economically, and ultimately militarily. This is a pragmatic reason to enforce sanctions on the adversary.

[xg15]

That's reasonable for a "short term" military conflict, but if you keep a country under sanctions for decade and deliberately reduce the quality of life in that country, that's essentially a message to the population that they don't count.

[zokier]

It is far less of double standard than what you think. The key question is the legitimacy and mandate of the government. Western governments can claim legitimacy and mandate through democratic process (even if it is not perfect), which forms a social contract for their citizens to follow their laws. But if government is tyrannical and does not enjoy legitimacy then it's very different situation

[xg15]

I've never understood how that legitimacy extends to foreign policy though, especially the "coercive" kind.

Like, democratic elections obviously give the elected legitimacy to govern the populace that just elected them. But sanctions (or military interventions or wars) by their very definition are enacted on a different population, that had no democratic means to influence that decision.

UN sanctions are at least somewhat different because they are supposed to be decided by vote of the constituent countries.

But US sanctions are essentially "some people elected the President because they liked his views on domestic tax policy or trans people, therefore he gains the right to call airstrikes on some place halfway across the world or forbid the entire world from doing business with that place".

It makes no sense.

[im3w1l]

This goes into what is meant by "expected". There isn't a strong expectation on any one Iranian citizen to risk their livelihood and life. There is small encouragement, that they may choose to act on or ignore.

[ivell]

The leadership of countries under sanctions rarely change their behavior due to sanctions. However the effect on the population of the countries is that they turn against the countries applying the sanctions. It becomes easier for the leaders to sell the sanctions to their populace as the enemy action. If the West is expecting any revolution due to sanctions, I have not seen it.

However, sanctions do have a symbolic value. And I also can't think of anything else short of military action to express displeasure.

[Seattle3503]

Sanctions diminish a counties capacity to wage war.

[sjapkee]

No. Countries just will take money from their people. It diminishes people capacity to survive.

[542354234235]

Both are true. Less access to materials, components, IP, and skilled labor all diminish a country's war fighting ability. There aren't unlimited funds you can take from citizens, and money you do take has effects on your labor force and talent pool.

[myrmidon]

Can't wage war effectively if you're starving.

[lazide]

Cite? Russia and Iran seem to not be giving too much of a shit. NK became a nuclear power under sanctions.

[kelnos]

Would Russia perhaps have already conquered Ukraine without sanctions? Would Iran have destroyed Israel by now without sanctions? Would NK have become a nuclear power much earlier, and have a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons today, were it not for sanctions?

I don't know the answers to those questions, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was "yes".

[johnisgood]

> Iran is not the only example in which sanctions have resulted in unintended consequences. Since 1970, unilateral sanctions imposed by the U.S. have achieved foreign policy goals in just about 13% of cases, according to one study. A recent Congressional Research report evaluating U.S. sanctions in Venezuela found that sanctions “exacerbated an ongoing economic and humanitarian crisis caused by government mismanagement and corruption that has promoted 7.7 million Venezuelans to flee.” U.S. sanctions also exacerbated humanitarian crises in North Korea, reported UNICEF, putting 60,000 vulnerable children at risk of starvation due to limited humanitarian aid.

https://washingtondc.jhu.edu/news/do-sanctions-actually-work...

[lazide]

Russia lost (in a real sense), when their blitzkrieg of Kiev failed. From that point on, it’s just how much they turn the crank on the meat grinder that is trench warfare. It’s the nature of the bet that is inherent in Blitzkrieg. Ukraine/Russia is about who is going to lose more after that, not who can win. No one can win anymore.

Sanctions or lack thereof definitely impacts quality of life, but Putin put everything on a war economy footing pretty quickly anyway, and in that environment (especially in Russia), it’s suffering all the way down. And Russia excels at Suffering. Russia has oil too, and plenty of minerals, so if anything I expect by now they’re just getting stronger (economically), barring Ukraine wrecking their shit from time to time with a well placed drone strike.

Iran/Israel is an interesting question, but near as I can tell, Iran doesn’t really want to destroy Israel. They just want to make them as miserable as possible, and show they can ‘do harm’ to them when they need to prop up domestic support among the hardliners.

Israel provides a good scapegoat for the Iranian leadership.

With Israel gone, who is the Ayatollah going to use as the big bad? The Great Satan (USA) isn’t as tractable a target when they don’t have a designated ‘local’ they can go after, and if Iran actually meaningfully hurt the US (nuked the White House?), Iran is glass regardless of how otherwise strong they are.

NK got sanctions because they love playing the crazy-dude-with-a-gun-that-just-wants-a-handout, which is also why they eventually got nukes. They might have gotten nukes a little faster without sanctions, but sanctions definitely gave the hardliners huge leverage in the country. Hard to be friendly with the west (as a civilian!) when the west is literally openly starving the country, even if the leadership of your country is egging them on eh?

Near as I can tell, the USSR fell because of jeans and rock and roll. So yes, I think the ‘good guy’ sanctions BS is ultimately self defeating.

It can work if someone is either a) in a tenuous economic position, and b) the ‘sanctioningish’ behavior is not existential.

But any good authoritarian would rather throw their entire population under the bus ‘for the greater good’ than give in on something important for them…

And countries know how to deal with being at war (generally), even if it’s a weird only-semi-economic one.

[victorbjorklund]

Russia have gas shortages right now because their plants keep getting blown up and the needed spare parts are often western.

[athrowaway3z]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...

[mynegation]

Main reason being that there are large and powerful countries that do not give a damn about sanctions.

[1234letshaveatw]

Name one

[lelanthran]

> The leadership of countries under sanctions rarely change their behavior due to sanctions. However the effect on the population of the countries is that they turn against the countries applying the sanctions. It becomes easier for the leaders to sell the sanctions to their populace as the enemy action.

Counterpoint: South Africa.

> If the West is expecting any revolution due to sanctions, I have not seen it.

You have now.

[zdragnar]

Isn't South Africa the exception? There have been sanctions on many more countries who have not changed at all, or even doubled down on bad behavior as a result.

I can certainly understand, as a matter of foreign policy, not wanting our companies to be propping up or supplying such regimes, but I don't really get how anyone can think that sanctions are effective at promoting change.

[dash2]

On the whole, I’m inclined to agree, but didn’t South Africa eventually end apartheid because of sanctions?

[pessimizer]

Sanctions from individuals. The US did the opposite, and supported South Africa no matter what. Just like Israel - In both ways. Israel supported South Africa, and the US supported Israel. The dramatic sanctions against US citizens for refusing to buy from Israel and endorsing that people not buy from Israel are meant to prevent such a horrible thing as the fall of Apartheid from ever happening again.

[dash2]

This comment is mistaken. Many countries, including Japan from 1964, and eventually the US and UK, sanctioned SA officially. I doubt whether any boycott from individual US citizens had a serious economic effect compared to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during...

[FrozenSynapse]

You think sanctions on Russia are not working?

[tom910]

As an russians who moved abroad I think sanctions positively affect Puttin so far. Because, he got a lot what he wanted but couldn't get without sanctions: - russian companies replaced majority of international companies. Many of IT companies growed 20-40% year by year - sanctions locked money inside of the country which help to build new everything - sanctions made boost of internal culture and patriotism. Which also increased popularity of government and reduced any alternative options.

And many more similar examples. Sanctions will hurt Russia in long term but not now. Because good sanctions requires to understand the country culture + execute only that hurt countries, which didn't do western countries.

[int_19h]

Sanctions also helped them sell the "all the bad guys are ganging up on us, so we need tough measures" schtick.

[Xelbair]

Honestly, their effect is diminished. After speaking with Russians living in there, day to day life hasn't been affected that much, after initial shock.

Trying to use sanctions against another major power isn't guaranteed to work as they can take the hit and pivot to internal industry(which happened), or trading with other major powers that do not sanction them(China).

Or some countries get around sanctions - like buying Russian gas/petroleum products through India - in a way this bypasses sanctions making them worthless.

Is it better than doing nothing? yes, of course. But Russia unfortunately is a major power - just due to sheer access to natural resources - and you can't just bully it into submission with weak sanctions that some EU countries ignore(petroleum case).

[kelnos]

> After speaking with Russians living in there, day to day life hasn't been affected that much, after initial shock.

That sounds like a positive, though: if Russia's advance into Ukraine has been slowed by sanctions, but everyday Russians aren't affected too much, I'd consider that a huge win. We shouldn't be punishing regular people for the actions of a their dictatorship government that they can't control.

[johnisgood]

Problem is that ever since the sanctions from EU, our prices of EVERYTHING has increased by 3-6x. We are in an economic crisis, thanks to EU's sanctions.

[ajuc]

Russia has had billions in oil money banked. It's mostly gone now.

It's working all right. These things take decades. Look at North Korea (first few years they grew faster than South Korea, and they had the more wealthy parts). Now their GDP per capita is around 600-1700 USD vs 33 000 USD in South Korea.

[542354234235]

Russia has had to sell oil at a steep discount, which has cut into their revenue significantly. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been frozen/seized that can't be used to fund the war effort. Modern war is not just "beans and bullets”, and Russia pays upwards of 10 times the price for key components it needs for missiles, aviation, UAVs, tanks, artillery, air defense, etc. as well as quality manufacturing equipment needed.

Russian industry is operating at only 81% capacity, largely due to labor shortages, which make sense considering that about 1% of its labor force join the military every other month. Russia is losing tank barrels, artillery barrels, and infantry fighting vehicles more than 10 times faster than it can manufacture new ones. It will likely never be able to obtain a third rotary forge, required for barrel manufacture, to expand its capacity. It has almost entirely cannibalized its old, defunct Soviet era stock. They are being kept afloat by China, NK, and Iran, but with a much-reduced capacity, and often much lower quality. For example, Russia relies on China for 70-80% of its microchips, but China is dumping defective microchips on them with a 40% failure rate.

Sanctions have absolutely had significant, direct, measurable impacts on Russia’s ability to wage war and sustain war. As for regular people, it is hard to think it hasn't affected then, given that last year inflation was 9%, interest rates are 21%, and disposable income is down 20-30%. That feels like a lot of belt tightening.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/11/21/half-of-russias-ai... https://jamestown.org/program/russia-exhausts-soviet-era-arm... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-where-are-russias-... https://archive.ph/c17pk https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/is-202... https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-sanctions-have-reshaped-ru... https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/comme... https://osintforukraine.com/publications/microchips https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/18/russia_china_semicond... https://www.economicsobservatory.com/what-is-the-current-sta...

[ptero]

> After speaking with Russians living in there, day to day life hasn't been affected that much

Did you speak with folks from Moscow or St Petersburg or from different regions? Life in the top 2 cities is kept as normal as possible at all costs; that is part of the Putin's approach to handling the elites (you can keep living your comfortable lives as long as you stay out of politics).

But elsewhere the quality of life took a big hit. Even in second tier cities. At least that is what I am hearing. My 2c.

[int_19h]

I have friends and relatives living in various regions in central and south Russia, and most of them don't feel like their quality of life took a big hit. The main frustrations that I hear are from drone attacks and associated inconveniences, not so much anything economic.

Anecdotally I have also heard that many factory towns are booming because the factories are re-opened or expanded to fulfill all those military orders.

[Xelbair]

different regions, outside of Moscow. basically a second tier city.

[542354234235]

>Sanctions have a theoretical basis behind them. In the Western Political Philosophical Canon, leaders and elites are expected to strive for the Common Good.

I would say it is a bit more realpolitik than that. An "Evil" leader doesn't care about the common good, but all leaders need subordinates to carry out their orders, security forces to carry out their rules, etc. Sanctions are meant to put pressure on all those people. So either A; the leader changes their actions so as not to risk losing the people that turn their will into action, or B; those subordinates put someone else in charge that will play ball.

[wang_li]

Not trading with a despot can just be not trading with a despot. It doesn't have to have an agenda.

If I personally choose to boycott a sneaker brand because I have a firm belief that they run sweatshops in a foreign country, is that collective punishment? No, I'm just not supporting someone who doesn't align with my values. Even if, as a side effect, the workers won't be getting the pittance that they would have gotten from my purchase.

[klntsky]

> with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

I dont't know what is this based on, but no, sanctions are needed to stop the other party from benefitting from economic activity, not to punish.

[SalmoShalazar]

Sounds like punishment to me.

[petre]

Well, that's too bad. Lifting sanctions opens up opportunities for non-alligned government spies and saboteurs. I recall there is a problem with remote workers from the DPRK employed by Western companies. These citizens are already collectively punished by their governments. I used to live in such a country until the US managed to lead on the USSR into bankrupting themselves. Thank you, America! Thank you Ronald Reagan for all the USSR jokes! Thank you Michael Gorbachev for letting it slide!

[koonsolo]

So your proposal is that we do business with all these countries so they have thriving economies with more money they can invest into their government and military?

[nashashmi]

> with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

Is this really a US endeavor by policy?

[nemomarx]

It's the occasionally given justification for embargos on Cuba, Sanctions on North Korea, etc. Whether you believe it's the real reason is a different question.

[nashashmi]

Unbelievable that causing unrest in other countries is an official declared policy.

[gosub100]

It's like saying "all you" Iranians are choosing to publicly hang political prisoners using (Western) construction equipment.

[nmilo]

This the exact same as the email from the post, but the other way around. Either both normal Iranians are responsible for arming Russians and normal Americans are responsible for sanctions, or neither are. In general I don’t like blaming people for the actions of their government.

[Ajedi32]

The US is a democracy, so Americans are, at least on a collective level, responsible for the actions of their government, though not on an individual level of course.

Iran is a theocratic autocracy. Only the autocrat and his supporters bear any significant responsibility for the actions of the government there.

[nmilo]

In theory sure but in practice not really and to say regular citizens have a direct say in specific geopolitical decisions is absurd, given how unpopular many recent decisions have been.

[tgma]

The US is not a democracy, by design. It’s a Constitutional Republic.

[Ajedi32]

A democratic constitutional republic. Often simply referred to as "a democracy" as a shorthand.

The key distinguishing factor being that in a democracy powers are derived from the consent of the governed, as opposed to other forms of government (including some "constitutional republics") which do not allow open democratic elections.

[tgma]

Citation needed. Where did you get that additional term in front of it? Which United States founding document suggests that?

Democratic Republic, just like People's Republic, is actually a euphemism for communism.

What you are describing is "representative government" and "self government" not necessarily democracy. The will of the people is an abstract concept that is, depending on the issue, not always accurately measurable by equally weighted vote of a subset of the people that are enfranchised.

[roenxi]

I just want to add one angle I don't think the other comments covered well - it is obvious that nobody pushing the propaganda angle ("encouraging them to rise up") is serious because the track record is far too clear. I can't think of an instance where sanctions have ever triggered a political change and if they do then it is rarer than a country's elites changing direction due to internal political concerns. Nobody believes sanctions will cause political change in their targets. It is almost unthinkable that they would. What could that even look like? If someone has the power to threaten a country then they don't need to actually levy the sanctions to get compliance. Countries only get sanctioned if the sanctions aren't enough pressure to cause change.

The point of sanctions is to cripple the middle and lower classes, destroying a country's ability to fund a military. That actually makes it less likely for a dictatorship to get overthrown - the middle class is too poor to organise which is desirable from the West's perspective. Dictatorships are really bad at waging war effectively, they struggle to handle the complex logistics and are easier to distract and threaten.

[frabcus]

The example usually given by pro-sanctions campaigners is South Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during...)

[roenxi]

Do we have anything this century?

And frankly; we're talking about something kicked off by 60s US and UK, that map in that wiki article could be mistaken for one of the British Empire. Nothing's impossible but it'll take more than a wiki article to give me confidence that sanctions were the primary political force operative here or that the apartheid system was actually the thing at issue. I would chalk it up as unusual circumstances.

[graemep]

> that map in that wiki article could be mistaken for one of the British Empire.

Including most of western Europe, Japan, the whole of the US (including Alaska) etc?

[guappa]

This is also applied to italian citizens individually if they say documented facts about what is happening in Palestine.

[deadbabe]

Those countries wouldn’t benefit even if the embargos were lifted. Cuba and North Korea would still be shitty places even if the US had no sanctions on them. There is nothing the US could provide these countries through trade that would suddenly make life better.

[somenameforme]

It's not for fun. It's that politicians are largely impotent in many situations, but refuse to accept this. I mean they're the leader of entire countries after all, and in the case of the US you're the leader of ostensibly the strongest military in the world, with enough nukes to end the world at your finger tips 24/7. How can you not be omnipotent, the most powerful person alive!?

But then it turns out that war is too dirty, cyber stuff isn't dirty enough. So what's left? Economics - sanctions. We've carried out 374 ultra important meetings, and traveled to 73 different countries, to prepare this critical 974th package of sanctions. This time it'll actually do something and be totally more effective than other 973, in spite of the fact that obviously the most impactful things are the first to be sanctioned.

It's obviously little more than theatrics, but it lets politicians feel powerful and like they're exerting influence on their enemies. And indeed, they may be responsible, at least in poorer countries for some people starving, which is then mental gymnasticed into 'Ah hah! They'll blame their government, overthrow them and become our ally, the people making them starve.'

It's really a shock that seems to basically never come to fruition. Well except when you're sanctioning a third of the planet [1], including many of the most unstable places in the world, and any time there's a regime change in these places - 'Ah hah! See? Sanctions work!' The fact that said change would often have happened in any case is kindly swept aside. It's akin to the joke that Zerohedge has successfully predicted 53 of the last 3 economic recessions.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_sanct...

[bradlys]

Who is "you"?

The US government doesn't reflect the majority of Americans, at all. It reflects capital interests - which the majority of Americans are not. Majority of Americans are laborers.

[MarceColl]

Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like a generic "you", not talking about you specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

[Xelbair]

it was voted in by majority, no matter what mental gymnastics you do.

People either voted, or decided that their vote was worthless enough.

[kelnos]

Out of available US presidential, House, and Senate candidates, there is essentially no realistic electoral outcome where the people put into power will lift Iranian sanctions.

Representative democracy doesn't mean that every possible policy could be enacted by some realistic configuration of elected representatives, even if any particular policy is supported by a majority of the electorate.

[Xelbair]

>Representative democracy doesn't mean that every possible policy could be enacted by some realistic configuration of elected representatives, even if any particular policy is supported by a majority of the electorate.

that is only true if you flatten your system to two parties.

[umanwizard]

> that is only true if you flatten your system to two parties.

Again with the "you". "We" did not flatten anything into anything; we were born into an unfair and broken system that we have no power to change.

[Planktonne]

This is also true of Iranians.

People are pointing out the hypocrisy of demonising Iranians for the actions of their government while insisting that Americans are unwilling victims of theirs.

[MarceColl]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

[Xelbair]

blame English language on lack of distinction between plural(referring to 'your society' in this case) and singular you. I don't think that's a hard concept to grasp.

[pirates]

But you know that in this case it’s true since the discussion is about the US in particular. So this “enlightened” take is really just snide time wasting.

[dns_snek]

Who voted on this issue and how many options did they have (on this issue)? The answers are "approximately zero" and "just one". There was no choice when it came to this issue.

Our western "democracies" aren't nearly as democratic as people like to believe.

[umanwizard]

Whether to have sanctions against Iran has never been on the ballot in the US.

[jaapz]

> and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

What other options are there, except idly sitting by or invading?

[hrbsoscbfo]

> you

> you

> you

You don’t understand what the word “you” means.

[ezoe]

Well, we let China grow but there is no democracy or human right in China.

[sofixa]

> You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

That's (usually) a secondary goal of sanctions, if even that. The primary is to restrict the regime's ability to fund its growth, stability and military operations.

Russia can no longer (that easily) sell its oil and gas? Great, that's less money to invest into rockets and drones and tanks against Ukraine. It's also less money in the pockets of the oligarchs.

Realistically, you can't really push the civilians of a country to revolt with sanctions, or bombing. As Carl Spaatz said:

> Morale in a totalitarian society is irrelevant so long as the control patterns function effectively.

[mgax]

For fun?

[chickenzzzzu]

[flagged]

[umanwizard]

> and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea

No, I don't do this. I'm not in charge of the government. Who is "we" ?

[Xelbair]

'You' elect the government. Even if you didn't vote for ruling parties, majority did.

Also it seems to be a common thing in Europe to refer to other's country populace OR government as plural 'You'. From my small sample size of 3, Americans were always confused by this and thought they were personally attacked.

[sjapkee]

>'You' elect the government. Even if you didn't vote for ruling parties, majority did.

It's funny that people still believe governments let people elect anything. You can vote, you can ignore elections - result will be the same, your opinion doesn't matter

[Xelbair]

Then maybe some forces - economic, or realpolitik ones, or whatever etc - make the current situation a reality, no matter your political allegiance. Maybe it is infact an optimal resource distribution for current situation.

Or system is fundamentally broken, and You, as in populace, need to change it. you can talk to people, political party allegiance does not need to be a tribal relationship.

take your pick.

[umanwizard]

> 'You' elect the government. Even if you didn't vote for ruling parties, majority did.

So what? Even if 99% of the population agrees with doing something, that has no bearing on whether I agree with it or am responsible for it.

And, anyway, no major candidate would have lifted sanctions on those countries, so nobody could have voted against them even if they wanted to.

> Also it seems to be a common thing in Europe to refer to other's country populace OR government as plural 'You'. From my small sample size of 3, Americans were always confused by this and thought they were personally attacked.

Perhaps Europeans, with their higher-quality parliamentary systems, are more likely to uncritically accept the idea that governments actually represent their people, whereas Americans are more likely to realize it's a sham.

[Xelbair]

>So what? Even if 99% of the population agrees with doing something, that has no bearing on whether I agree with it or am responsible for it.

You are a cog, participating in system, voting in it and acting in it. You could wash away your responsibility only if you go back to serfdom.

>Perhaps Europeans, with their higher-quality parliamentary systems, are more likely to uncritically accept the idea that governments actually represent their people, whereas Americans are more likely to realize it's a sham.

well.. not really, i would say Europe is worse off as EU is basically one-party system with flavor distinctions. It is different on country-level but that varies on case by case basis.

Nevertheless the idea of democracy stays the same - you vote, directly or indirectly, on issues - every citizen is a participant in decision-making process.

No matter the political system, or ruling entity you have it will always have those 3 goals(in order), cynically speaking:

- self-preservation

- changing resource distribution in it's favor

- expanding it's influence outside the borders

The only thing keeping our rights(and that includes human rights) is the fact that governments can be replaced by different one(in healthy systems) with populace support, or that populace will revolt and reenact french revolution again(in unhealthy systems), or outside forces will take over.

Systems can be changed - either by evolution or revolution. Take your pick.

[lsaferite]

To be clear, less than 1/3 of the voting age population of the US voted for Trump and less than 1/2 of actual voters voted for Trump. That is not a majority in either metric.

Lumping the entire population of a country under the term "you" when discussing contentious actions of the government of a country is inflammatory. You (yes, YOU) are directly accusing an individual by using the personal pronoun 'you'. The general populous of a country has close to zero say in what their government does on a daily (even yearly or longer) basis. Do I have anything against your average Iranian, Israeli, or North Korean? No, not unless they are directly in support of the objectionable policies of their respective governments. Barring evidence of this, I presume they are like most other citizens of a country, mostly along for the ride.

So, perhaps instead of attacking individuals who quite probably had nothing to do with their current government making the decision they made you should attack the governments in question and the leaders of those governments.

[matsemann]

Not a dig at you, but it's a bit funny/worrisome to see how "we" are not in charge of what our governments do and "Nobody should be expected to take that risk" here, while comments from for instance sfn42 and mvdtnz says the Iranian people are supporting their government because they live and work in the country and should either take the risk by revolting or be classified as supporters of the government.

Such hypocrisy.

[2000UltraDeluxe]

In the real world, sanctions happen for a variety of reasons. They have wide-reaching consequences, and you can't expect everyone to always fight every single goverment policy they don't personally approve of; an Iranian citizen is no more obliged to revolt against the Iranian government, than a citizen of sanctioning countries are to revolt against their governments for imposing those sanctions.

[honeybadger1]

you can't just use harsh language to remove dictators or fascist leaders.

[matheusmoreira]

I for one want the USA to apply more sanctions, not less. It's debatable whether country-wide sanctions are just or even effective but I still think they should be applying sanctions much more freely than they are now.

The USA applied sanctions to the family members and law practice of a supreme court judge from my country literally yesterday. It's said this cut them off from hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.

It really kills their champagne socialism nonsense. They destroy my country and then enjoy foreign developed nations on taxpayer dime. You have no idea how good it feels to see these "gods" get what they deserve. I'll be forever thankful to Trump for it.

[tonyhart7]

don't get me wrong, US gov has many flaw and cons but are you seriously comparing it to like north korea??? this is fucking crazy

also what company even can do???? its law from gov

[incone123]

Do you think North Korean leaders would be nicer to their people if there were no sanctions?