Why do you read Lemmy instead of watching Rachel Maddow? Doesn't it put you in terrible agony from the cognitive dissonance? You're turning into my little reply guy. 😭🤧

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Calling Quincy Institute republicans, this is too good, you only read headlines. Pathetic!

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is the Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft and Senior Advisor at the Quincy Institute. Previously, she served as Executive Editor of the The American Conservative magazine, where she had been reporting and publishing regular articles on national security, civil liberties, foreign policy, veterans, and Washington politics since 2007. From 2013 to 2017, Vlahos served as director of social media and online editor at WTOP News in Washington, D.C. She also spent 15 years as an online political reporter for Fox News at the channel’s Washington D.C. bureau, as well as Washington correspondent for Homeland Security Today magazine.

She worked for a decade and a half at the most well known Republican propaganda network, Fox News, plus other conservative shitholes.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I don’t think the article successfully argues its main point. Sure, sanctions are galvanizing, but I believe it’s well understood that sanctioning a country is going to result in that country pursuing any other viable avenues to conduct their economic activities. It’s a stretch to say that the sanctions backfired. I would say it’s more accurate to write that the sanctions have resulted in profound consequences, and not all of them are good.

[+] multi_regime_enjoyer@lemmy.ml -19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So what would you call profound consequences that rebounded against the USA, Europe, Australia, South Korea, and Japan, if not blowback?

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That’s a different standard. I’m not claiming that there haven’t been negative consequences, but I would hardly call the economic sanctions “backfiring.” To me, backfiring means that the action actually brought the West further away from their goal of harming Russia using nonviolent means with the sanctions.

Consider the price of oil. Having options to sell oil in more markets means you can generate more profits. Being forced into selling oil only to a smaller set of countries who are willing to purchase your product? That’s going to have economic consequences even though it does increase isolationism. I also imagine it’s quite a bit more inconvenient being an oligarch right now in the presence of sanctions.

Has there been some blowback? Sure. But I don’t think it’s backfired completely. There’s definitely been a major impact.

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Russia makes more money from the sanctions being in place from their oil sales then without the sanctions.

That is the definition of failing.

P.S. Russian oil has full reach of the market because countries that should abide by the sanctions aren't.

[–] azl@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Sure - that's why people are resorting to stealing butter from grocery stores. Positively thriving.

[–] zecg@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

thriving

May you thrive in interesting times