| fighter said: the desired effect is 1/ to use economical coercition instead of military force |
But that is not an effect/goal in itself. Both economical coercions and military force are only means to reach other goals, at least in the official narrative.
| fighter said: 2/ to discourage russia from further damaging its' neighbours |
To me this is hardly more than an empty propaganda phrase without any real meaning, like "Change!" or "Yes we can!". I mean, "damaging" can mean everything and nothing - for example, "the west" is clearly "damaging" russia by imposing economic sanctions, right? So if "discouraging a country from damaging another country" was a justified reason for imposing sanctions, shouldn't the other countries in the world now impose sanctions on EU/USA etc., according to that logic?
But anyway, I think what you're saying comes down to the same that I said: Economic sanctions are meant to influence the policy of a certain country. That is the desired "effect". But as I've said, studies have found that this only works in about 4% of all cases, so sanctions are ineffective in most cases. Instead of influencing a country's policy, they usually just hurt the civil population.
| fighter said: 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) |
I don't really understand what you're trying to say with this, I don't really see the connection between the amount of WW2 deaths and the probability of economic sanctions being "effective". If anything, it would seem to stress my point: That imposing sanctions on russia was a stupid idea because it likely won't have the desired effects - because the russian population is "accustomed to suffer" anyway...
