Refusing to sanction an aggressive nation empowers that nation to continue its aggression.

Sanctions can be painful in the short term, sure, but they're a necessary evil. They heavily disincentivize violence without the need for more violence.

War is arguably the greatest source of human suffering in history.

Can you name one time in history where sanctions have actually worked?

Sanctions are not designed to change the regime. Look at the French president complaining how it’s “not fair” the the US seize the moment to lure European manufacturers to the USA.

The Iranian nuclear deal, until some stable genius ripped it appart.

It definitely put pressure on Rhodesia and South Africa, both of which eventually experienced regime change.

No idea about Rhodesia but for SA I think it was mainly doing of ANC

I would agree for Rhodesia. They became much like an island with the outsiders making sure that the authoritarian Mugabe had the stage to enter so he could flush the whites from the farm so foodstuffs would evaporate and hyperinflation set in.

I almost wonder if racists in SA and Anglo nations set the stage for sanctions so Mugabe could rise so the blacks could starve. They knew the food supply was safer under direction of Rhodesian regime.

Cast your mind back to WW2, where the Allies' sanction of Japan basically set the wheels in motion for their collapse.

Impressive how absolutely no evidence is given by such a massive claim.

At least attempt to refute the article which makes multiple separate claims as to why there is a shortage.

The supply is obvious, but the wise/stupid judgement is still up for debate.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/28/1125525861/how-the-war-in-ukr...

Can't obliterate even the tiny Russian economy without some knock-on effects on the rest of the world.

Between Russia and Ukraine, they produce some vital materials including lots of fertilizer, despite making almost no money. So while we're all taking a small financial hit right now, there are odd things like this as well.

> Can't obliterate even the tiny Russian economy without some knock-on effects on the rest of the world.

Maybe the GDP isn’t the best and only measure then.

I'm partial to total net worth measurements, but in case of war, you have to take into account things like scarce materials and growing seasons of crops.

Like how in Age of Empires you had gold as well as wood and food, if memory serves.

What a selfish take.

Yes, a selfish take from some IT guy making significantly more $$ than the average Brit or EU citizen. It's nice to be insulated from the rising COL bc you can lecture others from the safety of your home.

We pay good money for that home to be safe, something Europeans constantly chide us for. Maybe Europe shouldn't have been relying on cheap resources.

We? As in the US?

The oceans keep us safe. The money we spend is to maintain hegemony.

Are you sure its just the oceans and not the massive navy we have in them?

Aircraft carriers are basically by definition not defensive.

A navy is an effective mobile border when you don't have a Hawaii everywhere. It's easier to defend your castle when your first wall is 2000 miles from your natural border.

Plus the best defense is a good offense. Nukes aren't a defensive weapon and yet they're an effective deterrent.

Yes. Invasion is basically logistically impossible without the assistance of Canada or Mexico, and with their assistance, would require a large, obvious, and vulnerable preparation lasting at least many months.

Of course our having a navy is a good idea. I'm obviously (and I think you know this) not advocating complete disarmament. We probably don't need a navy large enough to project force to the literal other side of the world in multiple places at the same time, though. Nor a standing army large enough to invade and occupy 2+ weaker countries at the same time.

The vast majority of our military spending is about hegemony maintenance and the ability to impose our will around the world, not defending ourselves. Our oceans do in fact put us on easy mode, for simply defending ourselves—we don't need the world's strongest military to do it.

Well, since EU is most definitely NOT safe from Russia I'd say you either don't pay enough or the money's squandered on something else.

EU's safety is the EU's problem. It has long been underinvesting in security hoping that the US would be its bodyguard. Time to see how little money you have left over for social safety nets when you're not buying cheap resources from the same enemy you need protection from.

If EU's safety is its problem then why are we not allowed to take an independent stance in any matter? As to the cheap resources, I'm sorry we didn't invade Iraq, Libia, Syria to get oil for pennies. The EU bought at market price from Russia, what's your point? Was US oil cheaper and we said no?

>If EU's safety is its problem then why are we not allowed to take an independent stance in any matter?

The EU pushed for sanctions just as much as the US did, you just don't like the outcome.

>As to the cheap resources, I'm sorry we didn't invade Iraq, Libia, Syria to get oil for pennies.

Well, first, you need a military to be able to do that. Second, we don't get oil for pennies anymore but we're not under existential crisis as to the future of cost of living.

>The EU bought at market price from Russia, what's your point?

You built a dependence on a country you're now scared of and that manages to get by without your money and that was a strategic mistake. The US has and is making a similar mistake with China. If the China situation pops off, it'll be the same thing here (and Europe is going to feel the pain of that because it's reliant on China for cheap tchotchkes too).

The US has plenty of useful idiots in positions of power in the EU, yes. They knew precisely what sanctions meant for the populace but went ahead anyway.

As to the military I'd like to refer you to this: https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-nato-problem-defense-...

A couple of quotes:

"Opposition comes not only from the U.S., which despite Trump’s browbeating of allies to spend more, is intent on preserving a 70-year-old framework that lets Washington call the shots and put its interests first."

"Under the guise of avoiding “duplication” and demanding “complementary” capabilities, the U.S. and NATO’s political leaders continue to put up strong resistance to the EU ever developing the command-and-control capabilities that would allow it to operate outside of the alliance’s existing umbrella."

At least on the China situation we seem to agree...

I can buy you a ticket to Ukraine so you can check yourself if this is actually more harm or maybe less

I agree. I'll gladly help buy OP a ticket to Ukraine. Those of us that have family who have died in this war and others who are still suffering are more than proof that the cost of this war has a far greater toll on humanity than short term price increases. And, yes, I say that fully aware that economics impact and starve other humans, too. But lets remember who STARTED this war, and that the world has a moral obligation to do anything it can short of obliterating the earth with nuclear war to stop it and deter it.

Why would "the world" have any moral obligations? And why would the citizens of EU&UK have to suffer more than say those of US, AU, NZ, SK and so on?

Why does everyone have to suffer from what happens in your backyard?

Nobody has to suffer, it's just that the sanctions don't work as intended and need to be lifted. Find other ways to help Ukr, don't f*k EU over.

Sanctions do work, albeit not as well as everyone hoped.

I don't think they should be lifted until Russia reforms. Not even when the war is over, unless accompanied with a regime change that takes serious steps to undo the imperialism.

I think it's completely reasonable to expect Russia to get the same treatment as Iran and North Korea.

Who started the war? What year did it start?