Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
"We are going to intentionally crater the economy of X so they have less resources to do Y" is a fairly reasonable strategic maneuver, but not a very politic one given that 1) the pain falls on regular people and 2) admitting the goal is essentially admitting to hostilities.
Thus frequently pretending - or worse, convincing ourselves - we're using sanctions to convince a regime to change course, when we're really using sanctions to draw lines between 'us' and 'them' in international disputes (thus bloc-building) while engaging in economic warfare.
Hallo, the unroll you asked for: This thing! Sanctions have their uses (mostly actually as a diplomatic tool for bloc-building, I'd argue), but as a… https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1346172678189805575.html … See you soon. 
And of course that pretense is part of the larger pretense that US foreign policy has anything to do with concern for human rights — "to punish this regime for imposing suffering on its people, we'll impose even more ourselves" would be a tough line to parrot with a straight face
Sure, though I'd argue US foreign policy should - even from a pure realist perspective - concern itself with human rights. To do otherwise is what Andre Beaufre calls a 'psychologically false note' which entails severe costs in indirect strategy so often shaped by public opinion
I've seen the take that this is the purpose of Chinese sanctions on Australia. It's not about changing Australian policy but warning other countries against being too pro-America or anti-China
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
