ArnoldRimmer said:
That only makes sense if the actual desired "effect" is not really to influence a country's policies, but simply to hurt its economy. While hurting a country's economy is easily achieved (russia's sanction will definitely also hurt the countries they are imposed upon), studies have found that only about 4% of economic sanctions actually help reaching the desired policy change they were said to have. In other words, from the imposer's POV, economic sanctions are almost always ineffective, they usually just hurt a country's civil population. |
the desired effect is
1/ to use economical coercition instead of military force
2/ to discourage russia from further damaging its' neighbours
a regime change would be dangerous, if that was indeed desired it would be very easy to snipe putin, the problem is that putin is probably better than what would replace him
throughout history russians have been very submissive to their leadership and are accustomed to suffer, i don't see any other country that is capable of enduring such a bad k/d ratio as the one they had in the eastern front :
(for every german killed russia would lose 3 soldiers)
| Date | German forces | Soviet forces |
| June 1941 | 3,767,000 (900,000 in the west) | 2,680,000 (in theater) 5,500,000 (overall) (~700,000 in Far East[33]) |
| June 1942 | 3,720,000 (80% in the East) | 5,313,000 (~700,000 in Far East[33]) |
| July 1943 | 3,933,000 (63% in the East) | 6,724,000 (~700,000 in Far East[33]) |
| June 1944 | 3,370,000 (62% in the East) | 6,425,000 (~700,000 in Far East[33]) |
| Jan. 1945 | 2,330,000 (60% in the East) | 6,532,000 (Soviet build up in Far East accelerated greatly since February[33]) |
| Apr 1945 | 1,960,000 | 6,410,000 |
