Sanctions or deterrence? Gleb Pavlovsky replica to an interview with Alexei Navalny

In an interview for The New York Times, Alexei Navalny affected a wide range of relevant topics as the political leader should. It makes sense to discuss it only in this context. I want to touch on only one topic of sanctions, which, in my opinion, in Russia is understood to be inadvertently for purely internal reasons.

Alexei Navalny experienced not only all types of political opposition to himself and his team, but also underwent unforgivable terrorist attacks against himself and loved ones. As a private person, he has the right to revenge. I can neither confirm nor reject his claims to Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov named in an interview-perhaps Alexey knows something. I'm only about the betting on the policy of the so -called anti -Russian sanctions from the West. Hoping on them is common in opposition and especially emigrant circles. The opinion of their non -alternativeness is even more common - in the face of the radical excesses of the Russian authorities that violate all and all sorts of rules. And since the idea of ​​the “new Cold War” was rooted in political everyday life, to the great joy of the Kremlin, the sanctions began to seem natural, because then “something was like that”.

Sanctions - not holding back

The history of different types of post -war policy EnForcement is terribly exciting and explains a lot in the history of the 20th and 21st centuries. The Stalinist Soviet Union and the Stalinist Soviet Union had to develop a sanctions strategy against violators of the UN Charter. Here, the deterrence policy was found by a Western strategy later, without regard to the idea of ​​sanctions.

The identification of the regime of sanctions with the Cold War Policy is unacceptable and false. Sanctions are the “Eye for Eye” policy, as if it seems to be safe. Contrining (Containment) and intimidation (DeterRant) were not the "Eye beyond" policies. The opposing forces did not euthanize themselves with the desire to take revenge. They proceeded from the task not to destroy themselves at the same time with the enemy.

The classical Cold War knew the sanctions applied to one superpower against another. But these were sanctions directly aimed at weakening the main strategic enemy. They did not "punish." They directly interfered with the transfer of Western technologies and capital in the USSR, which, should not be forgotten, could destroy the West and sometimes thought about whether it should be done.

Subscribe to read the whole

Make a subscription Redefine.media to read Republic

Subscribe [you can pay for a Russian or foreign card. The subscription is extended automatically. You can unsubscribe at any time.]

Where are the money subscribers going

Most Republic materials are available by paid subscription. We believe that this is a good way to finance media. After all, as you know, if you have not paid for reading it, then someone else paid for you to read it. In our case, everything is honest: from your money, salaries and fees are paid to journalists, and they write about important and interesting topics for you.

The key feature of our subscription: your money is distributed between Republic magazines depending on how you read it. If you read the materials of one magazine, then your money will go only to him, while others will not go. That is, you finance only what you are interested in.

Republic uses the Redefine.media subscription. For design, we will redirect you to the Redefine.media website, where you will need to register and pay for the subscription. Authorization on the Redefine.Media website will allow you to read Republic materials from the same device.

A year subscription is more profitable than a month. And if you want to unsubscribe, this can always be done in your personal account.