Not sure how preventing companies from selling stuff to us or to travel in our countries are acts of war. I don’t have to buy from anyone I don’t like, why should countries be any different?
Why should Russia have sanctions imposed and the USA not for waging war on the people of Iraq?
Do you think there were any differences between the way we conducted air strikes in Iraq and the way Russia conducted them in Syria?
And as I understand it, Russia imposed sanctions on us, but not because of what we did in Iraq, and no one really noticed because Russia is a relatively small economy.
In both cases, countries were attempting to advance their geopolitical interests. Who was involved in Syria first? Who spoke of “red lines” first? Which country has deposed heads of state in neighboring Iraq and imposed crippling sanctions with the same intended effect on neighboring Iran? Which country has military use and equipment all over the region? Russia’s involvement in Syria was its first major involvement and use of a Middle Eastern military base in more than two decades. It did so to preserve the balance of power so that it doesn’t exclusively favor an alliance between the United States and Arab Sunni states in the Gulf. I’m not saying it’s right what Russia’s doing in supporting Assad – it’s despicable. But the United States foreign policy caused the entire mess to begin with by destabilizing the entire region.
As for sanctions, unilateral sanctions are one thing; coordinated multi-lateral sanctions that freeze bank accounts and place great restrictions on a country’s economic activity are quite another. It’s a joke to compare Russia’s “sanctions” to ours.
You can call it what you want – cutting off commerce and restricting the flow of capital into and out of a country can be seen as an act of war. An embargo in 1940 led to a strike on Pearl Harbor in 1941. When you threaten a regime’s ability to provide for its constituents (or subjects or whatever we want to call them), you’re asking for trouble and you’d better be able to justify it.
Big difference between ‘can be seen’ and ‘are acts of war’. If it is very clear what the sanctions are and how they can be lifted, then it is the choice of the affected country on whether they are removed.
Your position, like almost everyone else, assumes that the United States has the moral high ground and that the responsibility lies with Russia to essentially capitulate to American interests. That is precisely what Russians have perceived in their relations with the United States (and Europe) since the end of World War Two, and that is what they are pushing back against. The U.S. foreign policy of sanctions might have a much stronger moral foundation to stand upon had we not invaded the Middle East and Afghanistan in an attempt to control the world’s oil, augmented NATO, or planned missile defense and military realignment to substantively include Eastern Europe. Indeed, we’d be able to make the argument that the United States is a relatively benevolent hegemony. In light of these developments over the past 20 years, however, Russia’s actions, while deplorable, can at least be understood by those who look through a more objective lens.
And Russia’s antagonism over the past 2 or 3 years forces the question: what is our end game with Russia? Are will willing to escalate? How far? How far are we willing to escalate with Russia, and however far we do go, is it necessary in the first place? Is it necessary for America to be seen as ‘winning’ an imposing its will on Moscow?