Post-Ukraine invasion, the world has stepped up to hit Russia with severe sanctions. However, it's not a complete ban on Russia and that's because many countries want to avoid collateral damage to themselves. For instance, Europe takes in about 40% of it's oil from Russia (source: iea), so if it bans oil from Russia then Europe would take a hit when it comes to energy. But then there are those who say that we should press on with severe sanctions, even on Russian oil, even if that having to pay more for oil.

American actor George Takei mentions just that:

For Debate:
1. Should Americans or anyone be willing to pay more in order to penalize Russia?
2. If not, then under what circumstances would you make this sacrifice of paying more?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
1. Should Americans or anyone be willing to pay more in order to penalize Russia?
2. If not, then under what circumstances would you make this sacrifice of paying more?
For the record, I believe that Russia should face consequences for starting an unprovoked war. But my thinking in striking back with sanctions are the costs of such actions that will be inflicted on the Western nations imposing the sanctions. We obviously can't afford to tank our economy just to get back at Russia, and besides that, I would think that there are much more SMARTER ways to get at Russia other than tanking the economy. For now, this is my main concern. Are Western nations really thinking, or are they being reactionary and driven by a wave of sentiment which is becoming popularized (refer to the Tweet above, and similar trends) through social media?

So in short, my answer to the debate questions is conditional. The only way I'd accept the sacrifice, whether it be higher costs for oil or something else, is if it wouldn't jeopardize my own financial situation. Some may be in worse socioeconomic positions and may not be able to sacrifice as much I could. Also, I would hope that the governments that want to sanction Russia are doing all that they can do to offset any collateral damage (e.g. release oil from the strategic reserves).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
Some may be in worse socioeconomic positions and may not be able to sacrifice as much I could.

Okay, I think it’s always a good idea to remind ourselves that there’s a range.

Especially regarding military action.

For example, allowing NATO countries to transfer planes to Ukraine.

And a range regarding economic sanctions, some smarter than others.

————————-

And then you make a really central point about advocacy.

I like George Takei, the Star Trek money might be gone long ago (except for much lower level of residuals), the guy might be in his 90s by now!

But all the same, how effective is a rich guy preaching sacrifice?

(will be perceived that way even if he’s not all that rich!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
Exactly. Not very effective at all.
But activism is a learnable skill. So if George does something, anything in a remotely positive direction, he can ask himself, Okay, what might be a more effective next step.

By the way, George Takei will be 85 this April 20.

 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
But activism is a learnable skill. So if George does something, anything in a remotely positive direction, he can ask himself, Okay, what might be a more effective next step.

By the way, George Takei will be 85 this April 20.

That's true. I would also hope that we think through our actions before reacting. George Takei was likely just following the wave of reactions without thinking about how it would affect those of the lower socioeconomic class.