[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.

[miningape]

> China is a member of WIPO

China's issue isn't so much the laws / treaties they've agreed to on paper. The issue more the actual implementation and enforcement of said rules.

> Why should India change its policies around sanctions and start implementing them

I'm not saying India has to, they're perfectly within their rights to ignore requests from the US, but neither does the US have to tolerate that (as they have been) - everyone is free to tariff / sanction as much as anyone else (not withstanding other agreements, but the same argument applies to those). In this way, everyone is free to pursue their own actions and ends. And as such, the US and India aren't forced to trade / cooperate outside of their own mutual benefit (i.e. if trade stops being beneficial to the US/India, they should stop).

This is how I mean each country is responsible for it's own outcomes, don't want to deal with the US? Fine. Just don't expect handouts and cooperation from US entities.

What I'm trying to express is that it's a 2 way street and both parties can walk along it as much as they want - and not a moral issue. I'm not saying there's no consequences, merely that it is OK for a country to pursue actions that (it believes) are in it's own favour.

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

Completely fair, I've been diving into SA politics at the moment so it's just at the top of my mind. But there's been a long standing degradation in relations, to the point where recently the SA ambassador to the US was rejected by the US because of some very undiplomatic comments he refused to retract - followed by SA not replacing the ambassador for something like 6 months. Meaning there was no formal point of contact between the 2 countries, independent groups and non-ruling political parties tried to bridge the gap but there's only so much they could do. Another similar example is how while every other country tried to negotiate with Trump about his tariffs, SA refused (or forgot) to.

[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.