The THREAT of sanctions hasn't had the desired effect, and if they are enacted, they will take a while before their effect can be felt by the people involved - weeks, months, I don't know. And if they maintain a good relationship with China they may be able to avoid it entirely - although China may then risk its relationship with the rest of the world, if it's found out they're funneling money to Russia.
There have been sanctions on Russia since 2016, and they got harder in 2017. The marginal value of additional sanctions is now greatly reduced. In retrospect, imposing sanctions in 2016 and 2017 was a bad idea.
And what did that do to stop their invading Ukraine? Nothing. Nothing at all. That means those sanctions didn't work no matter how much they looked like they were working.
The Magnitsky legislation was a global sanctions response to human rights violations in Russia[1], not the Russian occupation of Crimea.
The point is that they are a prime example of how economic sanctions are effective, especially against Russia. If anything, there should have been the threat of more sanctions for invading, and now with countries like Germany pulling out of energy deals and other action, we have only to see how it plays out.
Sanctions did not work. They did not prevent bad behavior from Putin's part. There is a full-on war going on because sanctions did not work. They. did. not. work. Who cares what some wikipedia page says! -- use your eyes, see the war, draw conclusions. The conclusion is inescapable: sanctions no worky. Sanctions no worky + claims that they do == gaslighting.
What are you talking about? Sanctions were imposed in 2014, then more in 2016, then more in 2017. The ratchet has gone one way. The war we're seeing now started this week. Stop lying.
In fact, we don't seem to be willing to impose more isolation. We've imposed as much as we could without getting hurt ourselves too much. Now all options are painful, so also not likely. Also, every additional turn of the screws increases the risk of wider war. So, yeah, I think it was a mistake to impose such severe sanctions for so long over so little, especially with the court filings from special prosecutor Durham.
> The THREAT of sanctions hasn't had the desired effect, and if they are enacted, they will take a while before their effect can be felt by the people involved - weeks, months, I don't know.
> Their intentions are different from ours too. Putin’s goal is not a flourishing, peaceful, prosperous Russia, but a Russia where he remains in charge. Lavrov’s goal is to maintain his position in the murky world of the Russian elite and, of course, to keep his money. What we mean by “interests” and what they mean by “interests” are not the same. When they listen to our diplomats, they don’t hear anything that really threatens their position, their power, their personal fortunes.
Putin's clique actually stands to gain from sanctions. They control the Russian industry that would have to replace the imports.
> And if they maintain a good relationship with China they may be able to avoid it entirely - although China may then risk its relationship with the rest of the world, if it's found out they're funneling money to Russia.
> China on Wednesday criticized the expansion of economic sanctions against Russia, saying that they were unlikely to solve the Ukraine crisis and that they had the potential to harm average people as well as the interests of Beijing.
It's also worth noting that China has been turning inward under Xi, so it's becoming increasingly willing to "risk its relationship[s] with the rest of the world."
Yes, but that's a dangerous game Putin is playing. If the economy continues tanking and he chooses to prolong a possibly unpopular war with casualties on the Russian side, he may lose his favour with the population.
In a way, something similar seems to be happening with Erdogan in Turkey, whose popularity is starting to wane as an effect of the horrible economic situation.
So, I think that long-term, sanctions may help, even though there is no guarantee (but when is there ever?).
> Things get complicated when you go toe to toe with a nuclear superpower.
Especially one ruled by a egotistical madman with a grudge
That said, nato should have made huge show and noise about the Russian preparations around Ukraine directly causing nato to strengthen and beef up on the eastern boarder, and upped the troops on nato states massively. Things they are doing now. Those things should have been done before.
The sanction timeline is okay, the nato beefing up an communication around it was late.
Putin is just doing what NATO did in Serbia in 90s, I see no difference really, yet these NATO hypocrites get upset when someone else is doing it.
Only countries which can speak out are those which were against the NATO bombing and don't recognize Kosovo, everyone else has blood on their hands even without Ukraine.
American kids rarely learn about most of the dozens of conflicts that have taken place since WWII, including the ones the US was involved in. Unless this gets a lot bigger, it's not gonna be taught in the US, except university-level courses. Everything post-Vietnam is a blur, if it's covered at all.
Of course, kids alive now who pay attention to the news will see it. And future kids who are history or politics nerds might learn of it on their own.
From what I recall in American history class there's very little on post ww2 conflict. But I graduated high school in 2000.
I think there's little on modern conflict because recent conflict is more likely to be considered political and therefore controversial. It's true that there are parts of the nation where a textbook's take on the civil war might be controversial- but I think, where I grew up at least, you could teach up to WW2 without offending a parent's political sensibility.
I can't speak for American schools, but in Germany we were taught little of what happened after 1945, so I wouldn't be surprised if the situation in the US would be similar. It's a shame, I would have loved to learn more about why the world is the way it is today.
> in Germany we were taught little of what happened after 1945
I'd have to guess that has something to do with.. how things went for Germany in 1945? In my US public education we had a series of courses that covered "recent" history as in the last 20 years or so and another about current events.
> American kids rarely learn about most of the dozens of conflicts that have taken place since WWII, including the ones the US was involved in.
Added some emphasis.
Granted I graduated about 18 years ago, but my experience, and one shared by everyone I've talked to about it, including those who went to school in other states, was that our time in k-12 history classes were spent about like this (numbers ballparked but basically correct):
20% Early civilizations (largely "cradle of civilization" focuses, rarely going past the Greeks and not covering any of that remotely thoroughly).
25% The "Age of Exploration" in Europe and early American (as in, the continents) colonial history.
40% US history from about 1760-1900
15% Everything else. Probably half of our education of post-WWII material concerned the Civil Rights Movement, but it was very poorly contextualized and more of a "greatest hits" approach (as with most of the rest, really). World history post-WWII was hardly covered at all.
At the pace those classes move, there's hardly time to cover anything but the basics, and that only by leaving out huge swaths of time.
I only went into college with any significant grasp on history thanks to personal interest. It'd be entirely possible to have passed every grade k-12 with a perfect 4.0 and have huge blanks in one's historical knowledge. Most of the rest was presented with so little analysis and context that it was pretty useless (again, at the snail's pace those classes move, and with limited ability to push work on kids outside of class [especially, these days, for anything that's not math or reading] there's simply no way to cover very much in the first place, and none of it well)
A bunch of factors contribute to this, including:
1) You can only really push history so fast on kids under a certain age (go low enough and reading ability becomes a factor, plus they start with no context for any of this, and bootstrapping up to the point they can really appreciate what's going on takes a bunch of time). Most kids attend at least 13 total years of school by the time they graduate from high school, but they're only really receptive to a good history education for, at most, half that time—before that you're just trying to get them the building blocks to be able to understand stuff later, and often that doesn't even happen. This differential-ability-at-different-ages thing is why a curriculum will often repeat coverage of history material in multiple years.
2) We used to focus more narrowly on European history & heritage (and, broadly, the "Western" heritage of Rome and, by way of Rome, Greece), and put that stuff directly into things like the reading curriculum. It's no longer acceptable to have such a narrow focus and literature reading plans have shifted far away from that, leaving history classes to largely stand alone while the scope of what they're supposed to try to cover has only grown. On top of that, history classes are often less well-resourced than others (math and English classes, especially), notorious (especially at the high school level, where more serious history could be taught) as a haven for teachers who are mostly in the career to coach sports, likely to receive pushback from parents and admin if homework or reading load creeps above the bare minimum (that time is needed for math and English—if every subject gave out homework like those do, kids wouldn't have time to sleep), and constantly at risk of angering parents with facts (let alone even the tamest and most uncontroversial of analysis). Everything's set up for it to be neglected, and it is.
I don't see how this is obvious. They will learn about historic events in history class. Telling a 9 year old, right now, has no purpose, other than raising the cortisol levels in the already stressed child's mind. Children don't need to be exposed to adult matters, before they can understand them. Many psychological problems that come from poverty are from children being dumped into the deep end too early, before their brains are, literally, physically mature enough.
cut all exports to russia, throw them out of SWIFT, cut all gas/oil imports from russia
I would support all of these even if it cause inconvenience to me, but especially Germany wanna protect their business with Russia, so there is no way for real effective sanctions against Russia.
you don't need to fight with soldiers if you are rich enough
i agree. time to act was in 2008, 2014, 2015-16; basically until 2021.
same as 1930s. business as usual, protect our investments and companies and suddenly oh noes he has tanks at their borders, too bad, but he won't come for us, right? right...?
The invasion of Poland by Hitler was not the UK and France's "problem" either.
Assume the worst case with Putin. From Ukraine, Putin might attempt to annex* all other countries that belonged to the former Russian empire. In his recent speech, Putin lamented Russia's loss of the territory it had in 1916. He considers the whole former Russian empire to be his birthright. The man is extremely calculating, ambitious, and doesn't blunder easily. Look ahead.
* - Or establish a "hegemony", as opposed to a classic empire.
The invasion of Poland by Hitler actually was the UK and France's "problem", because they were bound by treaties to help Poland, exactly like the NATO countries are today bound by a treaty.
That is why UK and France were forced to declare war against Germany.
Unfortunately for them, after declaring war they did nothing, hoping for some miraculous solution without actual war.
Their inaction allowed the splitting of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union and then Hitler had plenty of time to prepare for the attack against France.
If your kids are on TikTok, unsupervised, they'll see partial nudity, suicide, and occasional live sex. There are whole user accounts dedicated to spreading these things. I quite TikTok after I clicked profile on an innocent video and watched a guy cut his own penis off.
Yea, its unconscionable to me that these platforms rely on end users to flag content, how does TikTok get away with it while YouTube is compelled to have a whole "Kids" section with no comments? They should not be allowed to exist, but then what would 15 year olds do for work? /s
There have been attacks all over the country today.
Explosions in Odessa, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Mariupol, and more.
Fucking everywhere.
My friends and loved ones woke up to explosions.
My employees woke up to explosions.
Many can't leave because the roads are massively congested. Cash machines have stopped operating. The shops are running out of food.
There are no flights. None. All the airports are under missile fire.
They've raised the Russian flag over buildings.
This is all out war.
Evidently, sanctions do jack shit.
---
You will all see videos of this, and so will your children's children.
Here's one for a start.
https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1496805801628995587
это просто пиздец.