If they don't stand by their word then they can re-impose the sanctions, it's as simple as that.

> Why should anyone believe they would clear the blockade if sanctions lift

Because at some point the West will have to sit at the negotiating table with Russia.

> If they don't stand by their word then they can re-impose the sanctions, it's as simple as that.

That does not work with the current Russian regime. The only thing removing sanctions will do is allow them time to come up with solutions to mitigate future sanctions. They are not good-faith actors, and only use good-faith solutions to improve their leverage in future deals

For everyone who wants to downvote, go and look how well the sanctions after the 2014 invasion worked. The primary reason why the invasion of 2022 went forward was due to their confidence that they could mitigate the same style of sanctions that went into effect then

> Because at some point the West will have to sit at the negotiating table with Russia.

Do they? What does Russia have that will force them to the negotiating table? The damage to this years harvest is already done and the supply chains will likely have figured themselves out by next year

If the US accrues enough "Oh, we don't talk to _those people_, we only sanction them" world states, they will encompass enough of the world's population to make it unreasonable for third parties to obey US sanctions, which they currently tend to (because the US sanctions transitively); and enough of the world's population to do things like replace SWIFT and/or drop the USD as their main reserve currency.

(Also, there's the question of the fate of the Ukranians, but I guess you're right in that the US doesn't care enough about that to negotiate with Russia.)

I mean yea, but arguing that the US has hit that point is different than arguing that Russia in particular will have to be negotiated with. The US could always lower sanctions on other nations than Russian

this seems like nebulous FUD that attempts to downplay that one of the actors here is literally engaging in a genocide

will the world (NOT the U.S., as the opposition to Russia's genocidal war is global) accrue enough countries out of 200 or so which engage in genocidal invasions of conquest of their neighbors in the 21st century? sounds implausible

> is literally engaging in a genocide

You know, the US (and people who drink its kool-aid) has been leveling several such false accusations lately, another one being about the Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs. As a person whose family was decimated by genocide I'll tell you that it's quite insulting on the personal level; but beyond this - that kind of rhetoric has a "boy who cried wolf effect", and that's really bad.

You do not need the fabricated accusations to condemn Russia for war crimes and the killing of civilians in its invasion of the Ukraine.

Russia intentionally targets civilians in Ukraine, because they are Ukrainian, how does that not meet the definition of genocide? which is.

`Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people — usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group — in whole or in part`.

When USA nuked Japanese civilians we didn't call it genocide. Targeting civilians is not the definition of genocide.

But the targeting of a specific ethnic group, because they are that ethnic group is, isn't it?.

I think this is a pretty good article on the topic, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61017352 and presents both perspectives.

Killing people who support an opposing faction isn't genocide either, that is just regular dictatorship terror tactics. The fact that Putin argues that Ukranians don't exist and that they all are Russians just supports that it isn't a genocide, as he doesn't intend to kill all Russians, just the "Russians" who refuse to be Russians.

Instead of calling it a genocide, call it a massacre. Russia is massacring Ukranians, nobody is arguing against that, and the world stopped accepting such behavior even in wars a long time ago. Prematurely calling it a genocide just makes people stop listening to you.

>The fact that Putin argues that Ukranians don't exist and that they all are Russians just supports that it isn't a genocide

as it turns out, the exact opposite is true. attempting to erase a people (as in "the Ukrainian people") is a pretty common aspect of genocide, and includes forcibly destroying their identity as a unique people

>Prematurely calling it a genocide just makes people stop listening to you.

then it is good that nobody has done so prematurely, as people have not stopped listening (unless you personally constitute "people" ;)

for more examples of the genocide you're denying, a non-comprehensive list of genocidal policies russia employs in Ukraine is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31447187

per the definition of genocide that I found on the UN's website, they are easily committing at least one of the points that defines a genocide. That is

- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

> he doesn't intend to kill all Russians, just the "Russians" who refuse to be Russians.

Given the slaughter of civilians in the majority pro Russian regions of Ukraine i'd argue that is easily false.

Are you implying the Uyghur situation isn't real?

I prefer to let the dronies and tankies argue their pro NATO talking points vs pro China talking points without my involvement. Most of us will have too much trouble wading through multiple state propaganda outlets to arrive at a reliable conclusion on that one.

> Because at some point the West will have to sit at the negotiating table with Russia.

The whole point is that you can't negotiate with Russia. Ukraine gave away it's nukes by negotiations and Russia isn't keeping its end of the bargain. Russia has to be defeated like the Japanese did or collapse like it tends to do from time to time.

> Because at some point the West will have to sit at the negotiating table with Russia.

I hope not. I've really taken to the idea that China should manage their connections to the West and hopefully take a lot off the top until Putin is dead.

China not being a democracy doesn't seem to be a problem when it comes to institutional stabilities for managing NK. The US has done a lot worse with some of its dictator client states.

Sure if the Russians want to have another revolution and run new elections or something that's great but trying to get Russia to do something is like pushing against a horse. Lets let China push Russia and see what happens.

> Because at some point the West will have to sit at the negotiating table with Russia.

We can suffer for longer than they can stay solvent.

I wouldn't bet the US economy on that.

There is no "negotiating table with Russia".

There is a "negotiating table with Putin" but it's far from sure if they'll really have to sit on that table or how long that table will even exist.