Comment by jimmydorry
5 years ago
I don't see how this isn't anything but virtue signalling, and forcing citizens to bear the cost.
Being cut off from the rest of the world's financial system, and with a collapsing ruble, not to mention a failing financial sector, how do you think people are going to find alternative infrastructure providers? What critical infrastructure will this take offline? What untold damage will this cause to civilians that have effectively no say against their authoritarian government?
It's one thing for governments to be handing down sanctions and interrupting "business as usual", as that is their perogative and they are accountable to their citizens by way of voting. In my opinion, though, it is another thing entirely to celebrate businesses acting in ways to inflict the most suffering possible on the people least able to handle such abuse. There is no accountability there.
> it is another thing entirely to celebrate businesses acting in ways to inflict the most suffering possible on the people least able to handle such abuse
No one is celebrating, I assure you. The crumbling economy, all of the restrictions, their children captured abroad, all these facts amount to a serious conversation amongst Russian people that can lead to a critical mass of people going into the streets and protesting. Look at December 1989 Romania, for a textbook example of people pushed too far with nothing to lose, taking matters in their own hands. It can happen again, but not so long as the Russian people don't feel the sting. It needs to be delivered fast and hard for people to trust that the great majority is with them.
Was Romania under any sanctions at the time?
People do overthrow lousy governments. I have yet to see proof that it happens as a consequence of sanctions.
Sanctions lead to people scrambling for survival, and those in power profiting further.
If sanctions are worthless, would you rather all the sanctioning countries militarily invade Russia and take out Putin and all the oligarchs? That was what used to happen when countries had wars with each other. Won't ordinary Russians suffer even more than having to move their domain names to a local provider?
Should belligerent countries be able to invade any country they want and suffer no consequences? You seem to be advocating for no consequences and having Ukrainians constantly die in a war just so the average Russian isn't inconvenienced
What is actually your alternative suggestion that you think will have real world and quick effects?
11 replies →
I notice there is a lot of they in your statement.
What about you ?
> I don't see how this isn't anything but virtue signalling, and forcing citizens to bear the cost.
It is the same citizens who are ultimately funding the Russian military with their taxes. I understand it isn't by individual choice, but that's the way it is and it is up to them to fix it.
Totally agree. It's amazing how many in this thread don't understand this principle.
The term "virtue signaling" is used so broadly as to be almost meaningless. One might even got to say that anytime someone uses the term "virtue signaling", it's virtue signaling. (sigh)
The accountability happens when the pressure the Russian people feel as a result of the actions their leadership has taken is greater than they can bear, and they replace their leadership in response.
"Pressuring" civilians into standing up to armed interior police willing to use lethal force and torture, in order to effect regime change, seems of questionable morality.
We change regimes in democracies by voting.
They change regimes in autocracies by dying.
That doesn't feel like a fair expectation.
Life isn't fair. Russia invading Ukraine wasn't fair.
In order to change the government of a dictatorship, someone would need to take the initiative to overthrow the government. This could be ordinary people, but the military or elites would have the best chance of pulling it off. But, there needs to be some pressure to change, or everyone will keep muddling along as things are.
2 replies →
Can you elaborate? I'm not sure how you think regime change in autocracies can happen any other way. It's not like autocrats listen to people and go, "my bad; I'll change my direction now." History suggests that only violent overthrow can effectuate that, with a few exceptions where a foreign invader was able to execute the autocrat, or where the autocrat knew they were backed into a corner and the choice was to flee or be killed. Either way, it's violent and terrible.
As Clausewitz said, "war is politics by other means."
1 reply →