That power we had was actually real and useful. But need to be used cautiously. And generally, with the support of our major allies. And never against them.
So the net result of all this confusion and chaos is what - a reduction in global trade that worsens the economies of various countries? A similar effect, although a different mechanism, to what happened in the 1930s? This, and the unilaterally imposed tariffs, will work to unwind global supply chains, as well as encourage risk-takers to make excess profits by ignoring the sanctions and countering laws to provide goods and services to sanctioned countries. Lawfare begets lawlessness. No doubt an AI can provide plans to navigate the complexity and risks.
"Lawfare begets lawlessness." Great point. When arbitration clauses and governing law stop being reliable, the legal plumbing of trade erodes, and that's harder to rebuild than any supply chain.
There is an analogy to be drawn between Russia's use of "hybrid warfare" - cyber attacks, sabotage, hiring unwitting flunkies online to commit crimes - and America's deployment of sanctions and blockades. In each case, we may say that if war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means, the "hybrid" warfare is a continuation of warfare by other means. Just as we ought to assess the American military's effectiveness in bombing Iran by the political goals it achieves rather than what the attacks destroy, so we should judge the choice to employ unconventional warfare.
People naturally resent Russia's attacks and wonder why European countries cannot respond in kind. The answer is that these methods are not-really-deniable breaches of law and consequently are not available to rule-of-law countries. Similarly, sanctions are more effectively employed by rule-of-law regimes because the rule of law is part of the service they are withholding by sanction.
A part of the process you are describing is due to the decay of the rule of law in America: the service being withheld is becoming less valuable, the sanctions more often perceived to be unjust if not outright illegal. The other part is that sanctions are more effective as a threat than after they are deployed; they are a weapon quickly blunted by use.
Thank you for the comment. Agreed that sanctions are strongest when levied by countries with a strong rule-of-law. However, on the decay, 2014 was a turning point when the alternatives that are now enabling the workarounds started to be built. This is well before the change in the international status quo.
That power we had was actually real and useful. But need to be used cautiously. And generally, with the support of our major allies. And never against them.
So the net result of all this confusion and chaos is what - a reduction in global trade that worsens the economies of various countries? A similar effect, although a different mechanism, to what happened in the 1930s? This, and the unilaterally imposed tariffs, will work to unwind global supply chains, as well as encourage risk-takers to make excess profits by ignoring the sanctions and countering laws to provide goods and services to sanctioned countries. Lawfare begets lawlessness. No doubt an AI can provide plans to navigate the complexity and risks.
"Lawfare begets lawlessness." Great point. When arbitration clauses and governing law stop being reliable, the legal plumbing of trade erodes, and that's harder to rebuild than any supply chain.
There is an analogy to be drawn between Russia's use of "hybrid warfare" - cyber attacks, sabotage, hiring unwitting flunkies online to commit crimes - and America's deployment of sanctions and blockades. In each case, we may say that if war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means, the "hybrid" warfare is a continuation of warfare by other means. Just as we ought to assess the American military's effectiveness in bombing Iran by the political goals it achieves rather than what the attacks destroy, so we should judge the choice to employ unconventional warfare.
People naturally resent Russia's attacks and wonder why European countries cannot respond in kind. The answer is that these methods are not-really-deniable breaches of law and consequently are not available to rule-of-law countries. Similarly, sanctions are more effectively employed by rule-of-law regimes because the rule of law is part of the service they are withholding by sanction.
A part of the process you are describing is due to the decay of the rule of law in America: the service being withheld is becoming less valuable, the sanctions more often perceived to be unjust if not outright illegal. The other part is that sanctions are more effective as a threat than after they are deployed; they are a weapon quickly blunted by use.
Thank you for the comment. Agreed that sanctions are strongest when levied by countries with a strong rule-of-law. However, on the decay, 2014 was a turning point when the alternatives that are now enabling the workarounds started to be built. This is well before the change in the international status quo.
That jackass Bessent likes to use the analogy of Jiu-Jitsu, but he's clearly a novice at the art. He should bow out.