World of Tanks developer is quitting Russia and Belarus

[someOtherGuy]

Actually, sanctions (and a misguided war in Afghanistan) pretty much ended the old USSR... I can understand the West's belief that sanctions and a misguided war in Ukraine might do the same to Russia...

You shouldn't repeat that around or people might think that you're stupid or something. Let me help you here: the USSR fell because that's the end of the road for the socialist/communist system, it's really that simple. Communism requires a great lot of tyranny to survive, if you get a leader with enough political will to "hand out" some freedom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasnost) you put your system on the countdown clock. To sum it up: the USSR fell because of the USSR, not because "America" or "the West"; it doesn't mean that Reagan & Co. didn't influence, they did, but it wasn't "the reason" (the reason was Gorbachev).

Oh... and actually... sanctions HAVE worked in other places... here are some examples

1) Between 1961 and 1965, the United States applied sanctions against the Dominion of Ceylon (what is now Sri Lanka) after the socialist government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike was accused of expropriating the assets of U.S. and British oil companies. The government fell in 1965, largely because of the economic effects of these sanctions.

2)The United States (and other nations) significantly cut aid to Malawi in 1992 in a bid to improve the democratic standards and human rights situation in Malawi. Malawi was largely reliant on aid (the sanctions were estimated to cost 6.6% of its GNP) and swiftly adopted more open policies. After a referendum, multi-party democracy was introduced in 1993, and aid was soon resumed.

3) In 1993, after Guatemalan President Jorge Serrano dissolved Congress and said he would rule by decree, the United States and European nations threatened sanctions. Business owners, scared of the economic effects, helped force Serrano out of power and installed a new president, Ramiro de Leon Carpio.

That's a nice list, you could say that sanctions contribute to destabilization of governments/countries, mostly in the short term (once you've learn the reach of the sanctions you can create solutions around them), so, for governments on the edge could be the final nail in their coffin. Here are some counter examples:
- North Korea's Kims have survived 70+ years of sanctions (survived, not that they're thriving)
- Cuba's Castros have survived 60+ years of embargo (again, survived)
- Venezuela's Maduro is ~5 years into sanctions, and still limping around (Biden even wanted to get his help with this Russia-Ukraine thing)

Putin's Russia is way more wealthy that any of those examples, what we're seeing is not much about "sanctions" but the re-polarization of the world (they can survive, even thrive without "the west"), where there will be the "Russian axis vs the Western allies" (not that I agree but what we've been sold) and the "conflict" will go on as a new cold war at least until 2024.

 

[Squid Surprise]

You shouldn't repeat that around or people might think that you're stupid or something. Let me help you here: the USSR fell because that's the end of the road for the socialist/communist system, it's really that simple. Communism requires a great lot of tyranny to survive, if you get a leader with enough political will to "hand out" some freedom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasnost) you put your system on the countdown clock. To sum it up: the USSR fell because of the USSR, not because "America" or "the West"; it doesn't mean that Reagan & Co. didn't influence, they did, but it wasn't "the reason" (the reason was Gorbachev).

There are MANY reasons for the fall of the USSR... many have done PHD theses on it... but of the many contributing factors, the USSR's isolation from the west, and the crippling of their economy that directly ensued from that (not to mention being exacerbated by the billions spent on the arms race), was certainly a large one.

That's a nice list, you could say that sanctions contribute to destabilization of governments/countries, mostly in the short term (once you've learn the reach of the sanctions you can create solutions around them), so, for governments on the edge could be the final nail in their coffin. Here are some counter examples:
- North Korea's Kims have survived 70+ years of sanctions (survived, not that they're thriving)
- Cuba's Castros have survived 60+ years of embargo (again, survived)
- Venezuela's Maduro is ~5 years into sanctions, and still limping around (Biden even wanted to get his help with this Russia-Ukraine thing)

Putin's Russia is way more wealthy that any of those examples, what we're seeing is not much about "sanctions" but the re-polarization of the world (they can survive, even thrive without "the west"), where there will be the "Russian axis vs the Western allies" (not that I agree but what we've been sold) and the "conflict" will go on as a new cold war at least until 2024.

Sanctions don't always work - in fact, I would argue that usually they do absolutely nothing... but... I was simply replying to the asinine comment "no country has ever been overthrown because of sanctions"...

The Russian government (aka Putin) probably won't fall overnight... hopefully he will eventually be deposed though... of course, history teaches us that when a regime in Russia comes to an end, it is almost always replaced with something worse... let's hope things change for the better this time.

 

[Burty117]

history teaches us that when a regime in Russia comes to an end, it is almost always replaced with something worse... let's hope things change for the better this time.

A lot of the Oligarchs spend most their time in Europe, spending their money in Europe.

You would think they must like it in the West. You'd hope if Putin does get overthrown, whoever takes charge would actually want a decent relationship with Europe.

 

[someOtherGuy]

You have a "west-centric" vision of the world and history:

There are MANY reasons for the fall of the USSR... many have done PHD theses on it... but of the many contributing factors, the USSR's isolation from the west, and the crippling of their economy that directly ensued from that (not to mention being exacerbated by the billions spent on the arms race), was certainly a large one.

You could see it the other way: "the west" isolated from the "superior communist system", but either way the effect was a bi-polar world (not an isolationist country, a la NK). In real terms the USSR didn't "isolate" from "the west" but was openly opposed to capitalism and everyone practicing it (everyone should become communist, by their book). When all was said and done it was proven that the capitalism and democracy were preferred by the people over the communist utopia.

Sanctions don't always work - in fact, I would argue that usually they do absolutely nothing... but... I was simply replying to the asinine comment "no country has ever been overthrown because of sanctions"...

Noted.

The Russian government (aka Putin) probably won't fall overnight... hopefully he will eventually be deposed though... of course, history teaches us that when a regime in Russia comes to an end, it is almost always replaced with something worse... let's hope things change for the better this time.

Russia and Putin will do just fine, by their book. The ones taking heavy damage are the "west allies" where the economies will be shaken hard by our great leaders policies and war itches. Maybe not, maybe someone kills Putin or he loses the next elections, but the ones predicting that has been wrong so many times that it's hard to trust them anymore, don't you think?

 

[Michiel]

Well - Russia could have simply let NATO envelope itself like an amoeba.

Russia could have allowed the continued, financed, attacks on Russian people in the Donbas.

They chose option B...

NATO "enveloping" Russia....
Have you... looked at a map of Russia lately by any chance?

 

[Sausagemeat]

At this point doing things like this is just making the division between Russia and the west worse. I have a lot of Russian friends, most of them are from Siberia and live further away from Moscow than I do in the U.K. and none of them want to be dominated by Putin nor have a choice about it. But they are suffering from the sanctions and cancellations the west is imposing on Russia. Those people are more likely to be driven towards Putin than away from him at this point.

 

[Burty117]

Those people are more likely to be driven towards Putin than away from him at this point.

But why? The reason the sanctions are there is because of Putin. Surely they can understand "get rid of Putin, have a better relationship with the rest of the world".

Sticking with him will just make things worse if he continues to wage war with his neighbours.

 

[Sausagemeat]

But why? The reason the sanctions are there is because of Putin. Surely they can understand "get rid of Putin, have a better relationship with the rest of the world".

Sticking with him will just make things worse if he continues to wage war with his neighbours.

Because they can’t get rid of Putin. That’s the whole point. They wanted to get rid of Putin way before you did. You act like they elected him, do you not know anything at all about Russia?

But if we start demonising and sanctioning normal Russians they will only hate us for it.

 

[Aaron Fox]

A lot of the Oligarchs spend most their time in Europe, spending their money in Europe.

You would think they must like it in the West. You'd hope if Putin does get overthrown, whoever takes charge would actually want a decent relationship with Europe.

They're buying lots of property in the UAE.

Some are complaining about the housing prices because they're driving them up so much.