 Aloha. This is Politics for the People. And we are welcoming you to this Think Tech show, which occurs every week. I'm Stephanie Stoll Dalton, and I'm your host for the show. Our topic today is about sanctions and the sanctions dilemma, how, why, when to end and those kinds of topics. Our panel of guests is here to discuss these issues with us. And I'd like to welcome J-Fi Dal and Tim Apachella. So welcome. What, let's just get started, J, on the sanctions dilemma. You know, what is the efficacy of the sanctions today? Let's start with where we are and what they are and how they're working. What are you thinking about that? It's mechanical. You put the sanctions in place to discourage Russia from invading Ukraine, okay? And Russia continues to evade the sanctions and invade Ukraine. So I guess I would have to say they can't be working. If they're working, it's in some future sense. If they're working, it's in some sense it reaches, you know, the people on the street some way, but it hasn't stopped Putin from attacking Ukraine, period. It has brought. He's still doing it. Yeah, he has, we've brought, it's brought suffering to the people and no, has had no impact on Putin is what you're saying. So. No, he gets around it. He finds ways to get around it. I mean, his trick a few days ago was to sell oil for Rupals. And that bolstered the price, the value of a Rupal. So where the Rupal initially came way down because of the sanctions, that brought it up again. And so he's got, you know, he's got things up his sleeve. He's able to maintain the war even though, you know, even though he's got the sanctions on him. Now, one other trick he's doing, I'm sure there are a lot of tricks, you know, in his playbook is that, you know, remember there are two pipelines to Germany. One is called number one and one is called number two. And number two, they pulled the permit on it. The Germans said, we're not going to finish that. And we're not going to take oil through that pipeline. Okay, great. But nobody talks about number one. And in fact, you know, number one is still pumping. And in fact, he's earning hundreds of millions of euros every day from the sale of oil through number one. And that's helping him fund the war over a period of time. That is a lot of money. So let's see, the number, oh, it's Nord Stream. Nord Stream one and Nord Stream two. Nord Stream two isn't functioning, but Nord Stream one still is. And he's got other things up his sleeve too. And he manages to deflect the effects of the sanctions so far. Well, Tim, can you continue on this issue as to whether there can be an effect? Can the West have an effect on Putin that's damaging and will deter him? What do you think about that? What is it that can be done and can it be done? Well, it's, you know, the coalition has to hold hands and decide to do these very difficult things together. And the thing that will finally make Putin pause for a moment, maybe reverse the invasion. If Europe, all of Europe says no, we're not gonna buy your oil or your gas products. But that's not happening, as Jay just pointed out. And as long as that's still occurring, then Putin gets the funding for his incursion, his invasion. So that would be the next step, I think. If already Putin is a war criminal, but it hasn't been formally defined. By the way, once you have a definition of war criminal, it makes, it changes the playing field altogether. Once that definition has been labeled on Putin's, and I don't think it's if, it's just when. You will see the rest of Europe being forced not to play ball with him because of that definition. So until that definition is developed and sticks to him, it could go either way. It really could, these sanctions. Okay, so Tim, do you think that the Europe needs a lot of encouragement to do this? They are the frontier. No, they need gas and they need oil. They need it from the United States. We've got to pump up production, which some of the criticisms for Biden shutting things down immediately, some of that could be valid, some of those criticisms. Sure, he didn't anticipate an incursion from Russia into Ukraine like we all have seen. And so it's gonna take time to revive either fracking or some of the gas production and get it over to Germany and Europe. But until they can have a replacement, you can't just shut the lights off in Europe and say, sorry, you're not having any heat in your house and you're not gonna have any lights. So that's not workable. So there has to be an alternative source until we can finally squeeze the Russia out of the game. All right, and we have the technology to go forward with and so that's a wonder, that's an appropriate suggestion and highly needed. What about the Europeans who have led the world in understanding the threat that this other Putin and his country hold towards Europe and the West? Are they in position and are they willing to make more sacrifice? I know you say that they would have to do that. I mean, the question is, if we're gonna have stronger sanctions to get at the oil and gas, Russia part of it, but are they going to be willing to make that kind of sacrifice? Do you see, Tim, that they have that? Again, I think the more draconian Putin portrays himself and acts, the easier it's for Europe to do that. And again, what I think once the definition of war criminal and war crimes is levied against Putin and Russia, it makes it easier for them to say, okay, we really have to cross the Rubicon here, that we're gonna have to incur some pain, but if not here now, then it'll be later. So we already have a mad dog for, as a participant in Europe, his name is Putin, and like all mad dogs, they need to be put down. It's just getting to that point where they realize that this guy cannot play on the world stage ever again. And again, once the definition is levied, then that makes that decision a lot easier and therefore they can go to the people of each country and say, we really are in a pre-World War II environment here where we have a madman and we have to put him down. And we're gonna have to take him out economically first and then hopefully he'll be captured and take it to the Hague later. But that's way down the road. So the economic pain needs to be endured first. But I think he's already crossed that line and certainly he would cross the line even further with the advancement of chemical or biological weapons. That's a very important point. And so Jay, do you think that there's any possibility that the Russian people are ready to change that leadership? And where do you think the impetus comes for changing the leadership? I think I'm making an assumption that is the people. But do you agree with that? How might that work and how likely is that? Certainly in the near term. It's not likely at all. This was out of 1984 in George Orwell. He's got them all brainwashed. He's flooding the propaganda and a good percentage of them are buying it have already integrated. It's sort of like the Trump base. It's not rational. It's not critical thinking, but they buy it because it's all over them every day in television. So A, I don't think the Russian people are ready to depose him and B, I don't think that's likely gonna happen in the future either. This is an example of what a dictator can do using the technology of the media. And as is the sad story is he'll continue in office and it'll take some really remarkable events to take him out of office. Maybe a select few that would do a push or a coup. But I don't see any indication of that either. I mean, you know what would happen to you if you did that. He's managed to squash the press. He's managed to squash opponents in any election and freedom of speech and democracy in general. I mean, there were figments of it a couple of years ago. Navalny was a figment of it, but now it's over. And he controls the country and everybody seems to be, you know, buying into that. So that's the way it is and that's the way it's gonna be. And if you're looking for a path to remove him, I really, I don't think anyone can see the path. But let me go back to, you know, the designation of this man as a war criminal. I'm not sure that that can happen in absentia. You know, it's a sequence thing. If you, I guess if you start a proceeding, which I think they are starting a proceeding, you're saying, you know, there's some evidence for the proposition that he's a war criminal. Therefore we'll have a proceeding, but then you gotta get him and then you gotta litigate it. And you gotta show that he fits within whatever the definition is. I think that the people of Europe, not sure about the US, but the people of Europe have already decided. I mean, the thoughtful people of Europe because there's a lot of people who'd rather go to a soccer game, you know, all over Europe, just like here, we'd rather go to a volleyball game. But the thoughtful people of Europe have already concluded, and including NATO and the EU officials, they've already concluded he's a war criminal. And it does shape their thinking. It was a, there was some comments between the foreign minister of Ukraine and the NATO chief of the NATO organization yesterday. And somebody said, your attitude about weapons seems to have changed NATO. What made it change? And he said, very flat out, Bukha made it change. The war crimes that were conducted in Bukha have made us change our view on what weapons we're gonna give the Ukrainians and we will give them more. And of course, the guy from Ukraine, the foreign minister was saying, there's only three things in my agenda. So what's that? That's weapons, weapons, and weapons. I didn't want to say that. Yeah, that was a sense of humor, like, like Zelensky. Yeah, yeah. But the point is that they're on the same page now about weapons anyway, because the Ukrainians probably want more and more powerful and more high tech and all that. But they're getting, or at least they're getting promises, now immediate promises from NATO about giving them more weapons. And it's all because of what Putin has done in Bukha and other cities like Mariupol. And he's killed thousands of people. Is there, Tim and I have had this conversation before. Now, what exactly is the difference when you just kill everybody in sight systematically and with high tech? And you don't even take care of them. You don't allow them humanitarian. I mean, that is war crimes. That is tantamount to what happened in Germany. And it'll keep on going until somebody stops Putin. It'll go from 5,000 to 10,000 to 50,000 into the millions unless somebody stops him. Well, you know, the topic of the show is the dilemma of sanctions, which was meant to point to the potential success of sanctions in that if you impose sanctions, you have a withdrawal date in mind. And you have circumstances upon which that withdrawal would be made. And it looks like perhaps you're saying that Putin has already outplayed that one because there's not gonna be any response that's gonna lighten or withdraw this war from the people of Ukraine. Tim, what do you think about that? Has he really? Well, sanctions, again, I'll go back to my point. Once the definition of war criminals been labeled, there is no withdrawal of sanctions until this war criminal is apprehended, I think. Just as a point, you know, remember the served leader, Milozovich, was convicted in abstentia. He was convicted and then they got him. And then he served his time out and died at the Hague. So it can be done. He doesn't have to be captured first, then put on trial. It could all be done in abstentia. So, but again, one of the things that Putin wants that he mentioned in Turkey was that, one, that you dropped the quest for NATO, two, you dropped the sanctions, and three, you dropped all allegations of war crimes. I think we're past that now. I don't think in negotiations, you can go to that and give Putin what he wants. So therefore, how do you negotiate a settlement of the Ukraine invasion, when war crimes will be on the table and won't be taken off the table? So how do you get to diplomacy again? So that's where we're far, far from that, even though Putin has acted. Had we not seen butcha, had we not seen it, you know, up front and close, Putin might have had an opportunity to get out of it. But now it's etched in our memories. And it's, and Jay yesterday said, and rightly so, how is this any different than the camps of Auschwitz and all the death camps in Germany and Poland and the Holocaust? How is this any different? And you really have to look at and say, there isn't. Not different in number, that's all. Numbers, yes, of course, yes. And you rightly pointed out that the Holocaust was focused on a particular race of people. And this one is this wholesale slaughter of everyone. Yes, it's dire. I wanna go to one point, though. Okay, we have a question after that. You framed this around the word dilemma, okay? And I take Tim's point about dilemma. First of all, we have seen so far in the past several months. And then if you look back into 2013, 2014, that Putin doesn't make peace. He never makes peace. He goes to the end game all the time. And he hasn't shown any sign of making peace now. So it's a theoretical thing only about whether he would get on the table and make peace. It'd be so stressed that he would have to make peace. And then the question then, this is a dilemma. The question then is whether Zelinsky would accept any kind of peace agreement with Putin even if there was a peace agreement, which I doubt, where Zelinsky and Western Europe would forgive him the war crimes and would reverse the sanctions. And Zelinsky, rightly so, would say, no way. We are not forgiving him. We lost thousands of people. He destroyed our country. We're not forgiving him. Western Europe may be of a different mind about that. They might really wanna have peace. And on the sanctions, although I think Western Europe would probably roll the sanctions back as part of a peace. Right now, end of sanctions. Zelinsky would probably do that too. So it's the war crimes that create the dilemma. It's a moral issue. And I don't think it's resolvable. I don't think there's any middle ground. I don't think that's good. I agree. It's gonna stand in the way of any negotiation because Zelinsky will never agree to forgive. And of course, the question is- And there should NATO. But Putin is always going to require those two points. You have to forgive me, you have to pardon me and my country. And also, you have to roll back the sanctions. I don't know about NATO. I mean, they're gonna be practical at the end of the day. And Jay, if war criminal status allows you to be taken out, in Putin's case, has he also bulwarked himself by having all this disinformation and propaganda out there so that all of his people think he's doing a good thing in Ukraine? You're right. I mean, it stands in the way for him. But remember that he doesn't settle. And he doesn't settle. The Russians have the famous thing about painting the grass green. When the general comes to the army barracks, they paint the grass green because it's a matter of delivering the message to the general and showing there. So he would probably announce that he's won. He would announce that he won the war even if he didn't win the war. That'd be the Russian approach. But I think more likely he's gonna keep on pounding. He's gonna keep on doubling down. Him and Trump do the same thing. Keep on doubling down. And at the end of the day, he's gonna get into a position militarily where he can say he won. And whether he has to paint the grass green or not. And I think that's gonna be the end of this. There isn't going to be an agreement. Really important point. And I'm gonna go to the question now so that we have a chance to cover it. And it's a little bit, it's long. As our questions usually go. So I'll read it to you and then we'll get some comment from Tim first, okay? All right, recently, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told Congress that the US was prepared to use the same sorts of economic sanctions if China were to move against Taiwan, citing the success and severity of the sanctions against Russia. Any approach to removing the sanctions against Russia will set a precedent for the duration and end state consequences of US sanctions in similar cases of aggression, like China versus Taiwan. In a sense, it clarifies and bounds the cost benefit analysis for future aggressor states analysis which might show the cost to be worth the benefits. So should the US consider the presidential value of its removal of sanctions, of its removal of sanctions on Russia in this way? And if so, what should that precedent be? So here we're taking it into the hall of mirrors, another couple of feet. I feel like I'm in a spelling bee. Could you use that in a sentence, please? That's okay. You know, first off, Jersey Yellen find that odd that she made that comment because she's basically put President Biden in a corner about what's gonna happen if China gets involved with Taiwan. And I would think that's more of a political decision than the Janet Yellen's decision. But that was interesting that she stated that. We talked about this yesterday. And you know, what sanctions do we start placing on China and India for their support of Putin and his war machine, his invasion machine. And they're helping him out on the side. I think it's, it is time for the world that buys products from China and India to say, maybe we won't, maybe we cut that back and tried to get some cooperation through a soft stick approach. And maybe the stick gets a little bit harder if it fails to garnish any results. So you would soften then the US position. In other words, give him a chance to be in his own recovering economy. It seems like- No, not for Putin. Oh, no, no. Putin is, again, he needs to be taken out one way or the other, either through his own people or other means. He's crossed the Rubicon, he's gone too far. It's too late for Putin, he has to go. I agree with President Biden, he needs to go. And so I'm just saying that you, this will take a lot longer if you keep getting countries like China and India to help out on the side, quietly. They may not continue to do that. I talked to somebody just came back from India. And the word is that the Indians are really softening on this. Good, that's good news to hear. Unfortunately, it's hard for us to turn our backs on China because we get everything from China. That's tough, that's a tough order. It's hard for them to take an affirmative position, supporting Russia, affirmatively too, because they sell us everything. But I would like to make a point that I don't remember we discussed yesterday and that's this. There's another constituency here. It's the people who've been disrupted, tortured, maimed, killed, who have had incredible suffering. And in the 21st century, I guess to me in today's world, you should be entitled to some compensation for that. And certainly under American law and probably under European law. Now there are enormous assets that are already frozen, millions and millions and millions of dollars are frozen in the West. So that even if you, maybe it's a sort of a gray answer here, but even if you relaxed some of the sanctions, for example, you can buy oil from Russia now, it's okay. The fact is there's all this money locked up and there are all these claims that are unresolved. And I think those claims have to go forward. And those assets that are locked up have to stand ready to pay those claims. So what is a life worth? What is torture worth? What is being maimed intentionally? What is having your family thrown into a pit? What is that worth in ruffles and dollars or in whatever the funds they use in Ukraine? So my point is that a court has to get its hands on this. A court has to determine how much these people should be compensated and it is going to be a ton of money and it is forever. Yeah, and the reports I've heard lately are that the funds here that are in the United States under hidden names and sequestered in various places, they're never getting those back and they would be first of all designated for this. I'll go a step further, Stephanie. Let's assume for a moment that the amount of compensation exceeds those funds. And it may, but it's like $500 billion. Well, what's a life worth when you're torturing somebody and all that? This reminds me of the 60 minutes I saw years ago of the gentleman I wish I could remember his name. It was his responsibility to determine the compensation to the 9-11 victims. And it was an interesting matrix of considerations. And I mean, it was just fascinating on how do you calculate the worth of the value of a life and the impact of the family and... Part of that, it doesn't shock your conscience, you know? Beyond 9-11, which was awful, terrible, horrible, and you have now people are being shot in the eye, people being dumped into pits, Allah, Germany in the 30s. So, you know, I think it may exceed the amount of money that's being held. And if that's the case, assume that with me for a moment. Okay, that means that in our lifetimes and for years and years to come, nobody can excuse those claims, not NATO, not the EU, not the US, those claims are gonna stay with Russia. They're gonna be on Russia's back forever. Russia is gonna have to pay them either by assets that are already frozen or by any business that Russia wants to do with the West. They're all gonna be subject to those claims. This is a train wreck. Whatever else happens with the sanctions, whatever sanctions might be rolled back as part of a peace agreement, those claims for death and injury are not going away. You know, Jay, there's also not just the financial claims, but there's the social-moral claims. And I'll look at Germany as an example. I mean, it's really taking two generations for them to try to outlive the Holocaust that was perpetrated by Germans. And there was support by Germans. And two generations later, finally, they're starting to see the light of day about the guilt factor and the way they're being viewed by the rest of the world. So you're right. There's a price to pay, but it's not just financial. I agree. Well, I think the article that we all have by Ann Applebaum, it's in the Atlantic, Atlantic.com, and it's from 331 on 2022. And she goes over the past 30 years and all of the inattention that the West has given to these emerging and warf, preparing them preparatory countries. And we've let that go. And the only thing that is gonna allow freedom and liberal values to exist on this planet is if we are ferocious as are the Ukrainians who are ferocious. It's a ferocity of their response is what is a model for how all the rest of the West must resist these what she calls neo-imperialist appetites. And that there are several group of countries, you know them well, who are absolutely coveting all the territory that's nearby them. And we can run those off easily on our fingers. So that this is a very serious and not a theoretical war and that we have to ramp up all of the ways that we can install the protections for the free world and for liberal values. And those include things that we haven't done while we've done a lot of stuff. We haven't done things like have a Russian television or radio program that gives us access to the people. But I'm sure that, Tim, you can think of other things that we haven't done and need to do in order to protect the West's Well, I'll go to someone that was our former president, which I did not admire or support, but I respected him. And that was President Ronald Reagan. He knew the nature of Russia and the government of Russia. And he never for one moment let his guard down. We haven't had a president like Ronald Reagan that had that kind of understanding about the nature of the Russian government and their intentions. And we're back to those days. And I'm glad to see that the lights have come on and our awareness is starting to pick up because we've been very naive about Putin in his ways. And it's time to understand where Putin is and where he's coming from and the nature of Putin and what he's gonna do. So I'm not saying we're back to the Ronald Reagan type of approach to Russia, but at least our awareness, our situation awareness is far, far better than it was a year ago. Well, certainly, yes, we've been jerked. Yeah, we've been jerked. Yeah, so we're out of time. So let's have last comments. Jay, would you give us your last comment and before we go to Tim and then we'll go. No, let's not get too comfortable about solidarity. The solidarity we've seen in Europe, which is pretty good now, especially in the shadow of Buka could disappear. The dilemma you talk about, Stephanie, the dilemma is, should I continue the solidarity or get back to normal and buy my gas and not worry about what's going on in Ukraine? So I think there's a substantial risk that it'll reverse in terms of public opinion and governmental action in Europe. But whatever happens in Europe, it'll be much more in favor of solidarity than in the U.S. Because I think the U.S. has a dysfunctional government. Congress is dysfunctional, the Senate especially is dysfunctional. They don't care about this and understand that Ukraine is, as the foreign minister said yesterday, Ukraine doesn't mind, but Ukraine is fighting the war for all of us, for the West, for the liberal order. And it is extremely important to everybody on the planet. But I think in the U.S., we have a problem and come November, if the Republicans take over, as they will, they'll back out of the whole thing. And Europe will lose the support of the United States. And Biden will be hampered in his efforts to support the Ukrainians. It's not a good picture. Every time the Republicans undermine the president, that in turn undermines the solidarity in Europe. So let's see what happens, but I don't think you can make any guarantees on any of that. Yeah. So, Tim, can you give us a final comment on this topic? Sure. Yeah, this conversation has been great and it's brought up a lot of things in my mind. President Putin right now, believe it or not, enjoys an 80% support from the Russian people. What does this teach us? This teaches us the value and the effectiveness of what a propagandist can do. And we are not exempt from this. We had, Jay mentioned earlier, the Trump base, well, through his propaganda, the Trump base went from a 33% to a whopping 49, 50% at time of election in 2020. So it could happen to us. It has happened to us. And if we learn anything, it is the value of what a propagandist looks like, what kind of propaganda techniques they use and how to our guard ourselves in the future from would be propagandists, be it from Putin using our media, using our social media, or from our own politicians using propaganda to further conservative political agendas. And unfortunately right now, when you listen to Fox, I don't know if I'm listening to Russian state TV sometimes. And so propaganda is the thing to put our guard against and we must all be aware of it. Thank you, thank you. Well, we are out of time and this is Politics for the People, a weekly show. And I'm your host, Stephanie Stoll Dalton. We appreciate your viewership and look forward to having you join us again next week, same time. Aloha, thank you everybody. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.