[jemmyw]

The mistake that we seem to see repeatedly is blindness to adaptation. Russia's economy would have collapsed had the Russian government carried on exactly as things were before sanctions. No economy will really truly collapse while the people in it need an economy: they will make changes.

At some point those changes might include stopping the war and getting rid of Putin.

I don't think all commentators fall into this trap, but more thoughtful predictions get overwhelmed by those expousing more impactful ideas.

It does seem that Putin has lost something recently, a grip on the hearts and minds of a subset of Russians that previously backed him come what may. The war has been quite static this year, Russia still losing a lot of men, and hardening domestic policy on Internet use. I doubt it's enough for violent protests.

[thisislife2]

I agree with you that war can easily become unpopular and turn people against their government. But is there any country, whose economy has been sanctioned by the foreigners and crippled by it, where the people then decided to overthrow their government? As far as I know my history, no. Foreign sanctions easily give every country an easy excuse to blame all economic problems on the foreigners. In every instance, they've actually united nations against their "common" enemy (i.e. the foreign sanctioner). They also provide an excuse to stifle criticism using state powers as any criticism on the government handling of the economy can be conveniently labelled as speaking the language of the "enemy" and / or supporting the "enemy".

While I understand that the true purpose of sanctions is to weaken a country's military, sometimes I do wonder if it is a war crime as it also ends up effectively "punishing the people".

[jemmyw]

I admit I don't know a huge amount about the history of sanctions. I would think it's a relatively modern phenomenon. In any case, yes I'd agree that people aren't going to cite them as a direct cause. Retrospectively they won't say that sanctions directly led to a political change. They add additional pressure.

I don't see the people in Russia overthrowing their government either. It seems more likely that internal public pressure would embolden a political change. It only takes the second layer collectively deciding it's politically expedient.

That doesn't necessarily mean the war stops though. Russia has been reshaping itself into a war economy to keep going, that might be hard to unwind.

[ch_sm]

Isn‘t Iran a good counter-example? Heavily sanctioned, huge uprisings.

[thisislife2]

No. While Iran is heavily sanctioned, the current "uprising" was foreign-instigated, and a poorly executed intelligence operation that tried to hijack what was otherwise a normal political protest (that is actually a usual occurrence in Iran, despite western media claims of "no democracy"). The hope was that just as in Ukraine, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal, peaceful political protests could be transformed into violent ones through planted intelligence operatives in them, which would naturally force the government to use state violence to control it. Amidst a disinformation campaign, this would result in an escalation of violence from both sides, which could then be fanned further through foreign-controlled social media platforms to instigate young idiots to join the "mass" protest and foment a "revolution".

The reason it succeeded in Ukraine and Bangladesh was because of a clear polity divide amongst the population, and huge local support from one of the political sides (including, very importantly, the army), which meant the double goal of (1) getting rid of an "unfriendly" government and (2) installing a "friendly" government could easily succeed. In Sri Lanka and Nepal, it has meant a regime change, but it isn't clear if whoever fomented the "revolution" - the west or the Chinese - have managed to get the desired "friendly" government. However, in all 4 cases, the so-called "revolution" has replaced experienced democratically elected leaders with inexperienced politicians at the helm (which is the second-best option you could hope for, if you can't install a puppet, as inexperienced leaders are more susceptible to political manipulations).

In Iran, what went wrong with this "revolution" is that, first, there is no real local support for pro-west or pro-Israel polity. All those who remember the Shah's regime (when Iran was an ally of the west) and had fond perceptions of the west are now either old or dead. Most of Shah's political supporters were either purged or left with the Shah to the US (or elsewhere). The later, and current, generation has only grown up experiencing American and Israeli hostilities. Irrational western Islamophobia and Israeli-right's hostility to Islam also doesn't help. Along with an understanding of imperialistic history, they despise repeated western attempts of interference in their politics and thus, overall, have have no goodwill to either regimes. Thus, those hoping for a regime change and the installation of the Shah were always delusional that any hostility for the Ayatollah could be translated to support for the west and the Shah. (Moreover, the current "Shah" - the son of deposed Shah - who the west hope to install in power, chooses to stay in US or Europe and thus has no support or understanding of the domestic politics of Iran, and he largely perceived as a puppet of America and Israel amongst the local Iranians).

Second, Trump and Netanyahu's regime underestimated the Ayatollah regime. They figured that just as in Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, the government would somehow cave-in under the violent protests rather than opt to suppress the political violence because of the high death toll. Perhaps they might have partially caved-in, if not, for Trump's and Netanyahu's very public "appeal" to the Iranians to "seize the moment" and overthrow the government. This immediately made the Ayatollah regime resolute that the revolution was foreign-instigated, and gave it a public excuse to unleash State violence as an emergency measure (that any State would normally do when faced with a foreign backed insurgency) against protestors. And as Trump's regime claims, the "revolution really failed because the guns that were supposed to be distributed amongst disgruntled Iranians never reached them. Moreover, Iran, that has been surrounded by west and western allies, that has repeatedly sought to undermine it, has been studying western imperialism and destabilisation strategies for decades now. After seeing what happened in Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka (who were genuinely unprepared for an unexpected violent political protests, in their political planning), it probably already had a contingency in place for a similar situation that the west never anticipated.

Also, if the Americans and Israelis had been more patient, and not immediately attacked Iran, the high death toll (around 3000 or so) of the Iranian protestors could have been used against the Ayotallah regime. The deaths (and arrests) had resulted in a rise of anger and hostility against the regime, which could have been tapped in by the local opposition (who have been demanding further reforms in Iran's pseudo-democracy). All that political potential has been forever lost now because of the rash decision to kill the Ayatollah (who is now considered a martyr, and even more revered) and invade Iran.

Everything that could go wrong, has gone wrong, with the current political strategy against Iran ...

[rsynnott]

> But is there any country, whose economy has been sanctioned by the foreigners and crippled by it, where the people then decided to overthrow their government?

Arguably the Soviet Union. There's also a fairly strong argument, I think, that apartheid South Africa jumped before it was pushed, here.

There was also an attempt in Belarus, but Belarus is imperfectly sanctioned; it has Russia propping it up. There is no super-Russia propping Russia up, however (China's support is fairly conditional and Putin would be foolish to depend on it.)

[thisislife2]

Can you share some sources for the claim on Soviet union disintegrating because of sanctions? As far as I am aware, the USSR collapsed because its economy was mismanaged and extended, and the planned US move to depress oil prices finally pushed it over the edge. Moreover, Gorbachev was also an important factor to this.